(i/tj/w)^ 


0 


WHITHER? 


BY   THE  SAME   AUTHOR. 
American  Presbyterianism.    ItsOriginand 

Early  History,  together  with  an  Appendix  of  Letters 
and  Documents,  many  of  which  have  recently  been 
discovered.  Cr.  8vo,  with  maps,  .  .  .  (3.00 
Messianic  Prophecy.  The  Prediction  of  the 
Fulfilment  of  Redemption  through  the  Messiah.  A 
critical  study  of  the  Messianic  passages  of  the  Old 
Testament  in  the  order  of  their  development.  Cr. 
8vo, $2.50 

Biblical    Study.      Its    Principles,    Methods,    and 
History  of  its  Branches.    Crown  8vo,    .        .        $2.50 

Whither?    A  Theological  Question  for  the  Times. 
Crown  8vo, $i-75 


WHITHER? 


A     THEOLOGICAL    QUESTION  FOR    THE 
TIMES 


BY 

CHARLES  AUGUSTUS   BRIGGS,  D.D. 

DAVENPORT   PROFESSOR  OF   HEBREW  AND  THE  COGNATE   LANGUAGES  IN 
THE  UNION  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


NEW  YORK 

CHAKLES    SCKIBNEB'S    SONS 

1889 


COPYRIGHT,    1889,   BY 
CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS. 


E.   O.  JENKINS'  SONS     PRINTER*, 

tO    N.    WILLIAM    STREET. 

NEW  YORK. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAttFUBHH 
gANTA  BARBAHA 


fcl 


TO 
DAVID    HUNTER    McALPIN, 

THE    GENEROUS    DONOR    OF    THE    WESTMINSTER     COLLECTION     IN    THE 

LIBRARY    OF    THE    UNION    THEOLOGICAL    SEMINARY, 

NEW   YORK, 

ff>his  Boofe 

IS  DEDICATED   AS  A  TOKEN   OF   ESTEEM  AND   FRIENDSHIP. 


PREFACE. 


THIS  book  is  a  product  of  more  than  twenty  years 
of  study  in  the  history  of  Puritan  Theology,  and  es- 
pecially of  the  Westminster  divines,  the  authors  of  the 
Westminster  Standards. 

In  the  years  1866-1869  the  author  was  in  Berlin,  en- 
gaged partly  in  the  study  of  exegetical  theology  and 
oriental  languages  with  Dr.  Aemilius  Roediger,  and 
partly  in  the  study  of  the  history  of  doctrine  under  the 
guidance  of  Dr.  Isaac  Dorner.  He  undertook  a  special 
study  of  the  history  of  the  doctrine  of  Justification  by 
Faith  and  its  relation  to  Sanctification.  In  this  study 
he  learned  the  failures  of  the  Protestant  scholastics 
from  the  faith  of  the  Reformation.  When  he  came  to 
the  study  of  the  Westminster  Confession  he  was  sur- 
prised to  find  that  it  had  not  only  retained  the  pure 
faith  of  the  Reformation,  but  had  advanced  upon  it  in 
the  unfolding  of  the  doctrines  of  Sanctification,  Faith, 
and  Repentance.  This  was  a  surprise,  because  it  had 
not  been  noted  by  any  of  the  British  or  American  di- 
vines whose  works  he  had  studied,  and  it  was  entirely 
in  advance  of  the  faith  of  the  British  and  American 
Churches. 

Since  that  time  his  study  of  the  Westminster  Stand- 
ards, in  the  light  of  the  Westminster  divines  and  their 
Puritan  associates  and  precursors,  has  continued  with 

(vii) 


VJJi  PREFACE. 

constantly  increasing  interest.  He  has  spared  no  time, 
labor,  or  expense  in  searching  the  original  editions  and 
manuscript  sources  of  all  documents  relating  to  this 
subject ;  spending  many  months  in  the  chief  libraries  of 
Great  Britain  and  in  the  lesser  Puritan  libraries ;  and 
diligently  searching  in  old  book-stores  for  every  book, 
tract,  and  manuscript  that  could  be  found  and  pur- 
chased. During  the  past  fourteen  years  the  kind  friend, 
£o  whom  this  book  is  dedicated,  has  furnished  all  the 
funds  that  were  necessary  for  making  these  purchases. 
This  entire  collection  was  given  by  Mr.  McAlpin  to  the 
library  of  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  which  now 
contains  the  best  Westminster  Library  in  the  world. 

These  studies  of  the  Westminster  divines  disclosed 
the  fact  that  modern  Presbyterianism  had  departed  from 
the  Westminster  Standards,  all  along  the  line.  It  is  not 
strange  that  this  departure  has  been  unconscious,  for  the 
Westminster  divines  have  been  entirely  neglected  by 
the  dogmaticians  of  our  century.  They  have  not  been 
read.  One  looks  in  vain  for  their  names  in  the  works  of 
Presbyterian  divines.  Instead  of  them  the  scholastic 
divines  of  the  seventeenth  century,  of  the  continent  of 
Europe,  have  been  used  as  authorities ;  and  consequently 
the  dogmaticians  have  taught  in  their  systems  the  scho- 
lastic theology  of  the  continent  of  Europe,  and  have  in- 
terpreted the  Westminster  Standards  to  correspond 
with  it. 

The  author  has  been  troubled  for  some  years  with  these 
facts.  He  has  occasionally  referred  to  them  incidentally 
in  connection  with  various  theological  discussions  in 
which  he  has  been  engaged  ;  but  he  has  hesitated  to 
disclose  all  the  facts  for  fear  of  exciting  theological  con- 
troversy and  of  doing  more  injury  than  good  to  the 
kingdom  of  Christ.  He  has  waited  for  an  external  call 


PREFACE.  ix 

to  publish  them.  This  call  came  in  May  last,  through 
the  action  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  with  regard  to 
the  revision  of  the  Confession  of  Faith.  Accordingly 
he  turned  aside  from  other  literary  work  to  fulfil  this 
duty. 

The  question  of  revision  of  the  Westminster  Stand- 
ards has  become  the  burning  question  of  the  Presby- 
terian world  by  simultaneous  action  of  the  General  As- 
semblies of  the  American  and  Scottish  Churches.  Be- 
fore the  ministers  can  act  intelligently  it  is  necessary 
that  they  should  know  the  facts  that  are  presented  to 
the  readers  of  this  volume. 

My  friend,  the  Rev.  Charles  R.  Gillett,  the  librarian  of 
the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  has  greatly  aided  me 
by  preparing  the  Index,  a  work  for  which  he  has  unusual 
qualifications. 

This  book  is  historical.  It  aims  to  show  what  the 
Westminster  Standards  are,  what  the  Presbyterian 
Churches  have  done  with  them  in  the  past,  and  to  in- 
terpret them  by  copious  citations  from  their  authors. 
Only  by  such  a  study  can  any  one  intelligently  consider 
the  question  of  Revision. 

The  book  is  polemical.  It  is  necessary  to  overcome 
that  false  orthodoxy  which  has  obtruded  itself  in  the 
place  of  the  Westminster  orthodoxy.  I  regret,  on  many 
accounts,  that  it  has  been  necessary  for  me  to  attack  so 
often  the  elder  and  younger  Hodge,  divines  for  whom  I 
have  great  respect  and  admiration.  Their  names  will 
always  rank  among  the  highest  on  the  roll  of  American 
theologians.  It  has  also  been  necessary  to  expose  the 
errors  of  my  younger  associates  in  the  editorship  of  the 
Presbyterian  Review,  and  other  divines,  my  friends  and 
colleagues.  The  reader  will  see  that  this  polemic  has 


x  PREFACE. 

nothing  in  it  of  a  personal  or  partisan  character ;  it  could 
not  be  avoided  in  the  line  of  discussion  that  has  been 
undertaken ;  for  it  is  the  theology  of  the  elder  and 
younger  Hodge  that  has  in  fact  usurped  the  place  of 
the  Westminster  theology  in  the  minds  of  a  large  pro- 
portion of  the  ministry  of  the  Presbyterian  Churches, 
and  now  stands  in  the  way  of  progress  in  theology  and 
of  true  Christian  orthodoxy ;  and  there  is  no  other  way 
of  advancing  in  truth  except  by  removing  the  errors  that 
obstruct  our  path. 

The  book  is  irenical.  It  shows  that  there  have  been 
so  many  departures  from  the  Standards  in  all  directions, 
that  it  is  necessary  for  all  parties  in  the  Presbyterian 
Churches  to  be  generous,  tolerant,  and  broad-minded. 
The  author  does  not  wish  to  exclude  from  the  Church 
those  theologians  whom  he  attacks  for  their  errors. 
He  is  a  broad-churchman  and  all  his  sympathies  are 
with  a  comprehensive  Church,  in  which  not  only  these 
divines  shall  be  tolerated,  but  all  other  true  Christian 
scholars  shall  be  recognized,  and  wherein  all  Christians 
may  unite  for  the  glory  of  Christ.  He  rejoices  in  all 
earnest  efforts  for  Christian  Unity,  not  only  in  Presby- 
terian and  Reformed  Churches,  but  in  the  entire  Chris- 
tian world. 

The  book  is  catholic.  The  six  chapters  that  make 
up  the  body  of  the  book  use  the  Westminster  Standards 
as  the  test  of  orthodoxy,  to  determine  the  extent  of 
departures  from  them  in  the  Presbyterian  Churches.  But 

the  doctrines  discussed  in  them  are  those  in  which  all 

• 

Christian  Churches  are  interested.  The  author  has  kept 
in  mind  the  common  interests  of  Catholic  Christianity, 
and  he  has  not  hesitated  to  use  on  occasion  a  higher 
test  of  orthodoxy  than  the  Westminster  symbols.  What 
has  been  done  in  six  chapters  of  this  book  for  the  Pres- 


PREFACE. 


XI 


byterian  Churches  could  be  done  for  all  the  other  Prot- 
estant Churches.  They  all  alike  have  departed  from 
their  official  standards  of  doctrine.  What  then  is  to  be 
done  under  these  circumstances  ?  Whither  are  Chris- 
tians to  direct  their  minds  and  energies  ?  It  is  the  main 
intent  of  the  book  to  ask  this  question,  and  to  give,  in 
some  measure,  an  answer  to  it.  Accordingly  the  two 
introductory  and  the  two  concluding  chapters  are  wider 
than  Presbyterianism,  and  have  in  mind  the  Christian 
world. 

The  process  of  dissolution  has  gone  on  long  enough. 
The  time  has  come  for  the  reconstruction  of  theology, 
of  polity,  of  worship,  and  of  Christian  life  and  work. 
The  drift  in  the  Church  ought  to  stop.  Christian  divines 
should  steer  directly  toward  the  divine  truth,  as  the 
true  and  only  orthodoxy,  and  strive  for  the  whole  truth 
and  nothing  but  the  truth.  The  barriers  between  the 
Protestant  denominations  should  be  removed  and  an 
organic  union  formed.  An  Alliance  should  be  made 
between  Protestantism  and  Romanism  and  all  other 
branches  of  Christendom.  The  Lambeth  Conference,  in 
its  proposals  for  Christian  Unity,  points  in  the  right 
direction.  The  Church  of  England  is  entitled  to  lead. 
Let  all  others  follow  her  lead  and  advance  steadily 
toward  Christian  Unity. 

True  Christian  orthodoxy  will  stand  firm  on  the 
consensus  of  Christendom,  will  debate  the  dissensus 
in  an  irenic  spirit,  and  will  advance  bravely  until  it 
master  the  sum  total  of  truth  that  God  may  reveal  unto 
us,  and  exhibit  the  fulness  of  Christian  life  into  which 
the  divine  Spirit  may  guide  us. 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER    I. 
DRIFTING,  p.  i. 

CHAPTER    II. 
ORTHODOXY,  p.  6. 

Orthodoxy  and  Orthodoxism,  p.  7  ;  Orthodoxy  and  the  Scrip- 
tures, p.  9  ;  Orthodoxy  and  the  Symbols  of  Faith,  p.  19. 

CHAPTER    III. 
CHANGES,  p.  23. 

Changes  in  the  Positions  of  the  Traditional  Orthodoxy,  p.  23 ; 
What  are  the  Westminster  Standards  ?  p.  23  ;  Change  of  At- 
titude to  the  Standards,  p.  27  ;  Revision  of  the  Standards, 
p.  30 ;  the  Ministry,  p.  33 ;  the  Presbytery,  p.  43  ;  Presby- 
terian Worship,  p.  48  ;  Religion  and  Morals,  p.  58. 

CHAPTER     IV. 

SHIFTING,  p.  63. 

Traditional  Orthodoxy  shifting  from  the  base  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, p.  63  ;  the  Holy  Scriptures,  p.  63  ;  Verbal  Inspiration,  p. 
64  ;  Inerrancy  of  the  Scriptures,  p.  68  ;  the  Authority  of  the 
Scriptures,  p.  73 ;  Authenticity  and  Canonicity,  p.  81. 

(xiii) 


xiv  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER   V. 
EXCESSES,  p.  91. 

Orthodoxism  excessive  in  the  elaboration  of  the  first  eleven  Chap- 
ters of  the  Westminster  Confession,  p.  91  ;  the  Living  God, 
p.  93 ;  the  Love  of  God,  p.  94;  the  Divine  Decree,  p.  97 ;  Cre- 
ation, p.  105  ;  the  Doctrine  of  Man,  p.  107  ;  Human  Inability, 
p.  109  ;  the  Mediator,  p.  112  ;  Effectual  Calling,  p.  118 ;  the 
Damnation  of  Infants,  p.  121 ;  Forgiveness  of  Sin,  p.  137. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

FAILURES,  p.  141. 

Orthodoxism  neglects  the  middle  group  of  Chapters  in  the 
Westminster  Confession,  p.  141 ;  Adoption,  p.  142  ;  Sanctifi- 
cation,  p.  146  ;  Saving  Faith,  p.  149 ;  Repentance  unto  Life, 
p.  151;  Good  Works,  p.  154;  Assurance  of  Grace,  p.  157; 
the  Law  of  God,  p.  158  ;  Christian  Liberty,  p.  159  ;  Religious 
Worship,  p.  161. 

CHAPTER  VII. 

DEPARTURES,  p.  163. 

Orthodoxism  departs  from  the  Westminster  doctrines  of  the 
Church  and  the  Sacraments,  p.  163 ;  Church  and  State,  p. 
164;  Marriage  and  Divorce,  p.  171 ;  the  Church,  p.  173  ;  the 
Sacraments,  p.  179;  Roman  Catholic  Baptism,  p.  181  ;  the 
Real  Presence,  p.  190. 

CHAPTER   VIII. 
PERPLEXITIES,  p.  195. 

Orthodoxism  is  perplexed  with  the  problems  of  Eschatology, 
p.  195  ;  Judgment  at  Death,  p.  195  ;  the  Millennium,  p.  200; 
the  Middle  State,  p.  206;  Premillenarianism,  p.  211  ;  Pro- 
bation after  Death,  p.  217. 


CONTENTS.  xv 

CHAPTER  IX. 

BARRIERS,  p.  225. 

The  Barriers  to  Christian  Union,  p.  225  ;  the  Divine  Right  of 
Church  Government,  p.  226 ;  Subscription  to  elaborate 
Creeds,  p.  239  ;  Uniformity  of  Worship,  p.  248  ;  Traditional- 
ism, p.  258  ;  Alliances  and  Federal  Unions,  p.  261. 

CHAPTER  X. 
THITHER,  p.  266. 

Progress  in  Theology,  p.  266  ;  the  Consensus  of  Christendom,  p. 
268  ;  Is  Rome  an  Ally  ?  p.  269 ;  the  Dissensus  of  Christen- 
dom, p.  273  ;  New  Doctrines,  p.  276  ;  Biblical  Criticism,  p. 
277 ;  the  Future  Life,  p.  285  ;  the  Holy  Life,  p.  287  ;  the 
Unity  of  Christ's  Church,  p.  289;  World-wide  Conflict,  p.  296. 

INDEX,  p.  299. 


CHAPTER    I. 
DRIFTING. 

RELIGION  in  Great  Britain  and  America  is  at  present 
in  a  very  unsatisfactory  condition.  There  is  a  wide-spread 
dissatisfaction  with  the  Old  Theology,  and  the  old  meth- 
ods of  worship  and  church  work.  At  the  same  time  there 
is  distrust  and  anxiety  with  reference  to  new  theology 
and  new  measures  that  are  proposed  by  recent  theologi- 
cal doctors.  The  ministers  are  not  preaching  the  distinct- 
ive doctrines  of  the  Old  Theology,  or  the  peculiar  fea- 
tures of  their  own  denominations,  because  the  people 
are  tired  of  them,  and  will  not  have  them.  The  minis- 
ters do  not  care  to  preach  to  empty  pews,  and  besides, 
not  a  few  of  the  ministers  sympathize  with  their  people 
in  these  matters.  The  ministers  are  in  a  feverish  condi- 
tion. Some  are  desirous  of  adapting  the  Old  Theology 
and  old  methods  to  the  new  conditions  and  circum- 
stances ;  others  are  opposed  to  any  changes  in  the  old 
types  ;  there  are  some  hot  champions  of  the  new,  and 
there  are  some  sturdy  defenders  of  the  old  ;  but  the 
majority  do  not  care  to  disturb  the  peace,  and  are  wait- 
ing for  light  and  guidance.  There  are  some  few  who 
have  real  insight  into  the  situation,  and  therefore  hesi- 
tate to  incur  the  responsibility  for  that  dreadful  theo- 
logical struggle  that  is  liable  to  burst  forth  on  the  first 
exciting  occasion. 

The   Christian   people  are    not   generally  concerned 


2  DRIFTING. 

about  theological  questions,  but  they  are  deeply  inter- 
ested in  the  more  practical  matters  of  Christian  life  and 
work.  They  have  the  same  dissatisfaction  and  uncer- 
tainty here,  that  their  pastors  feel  in  the  theoretical 
parts  of  theology.  The  churches  fail  to  do  the  Chris- 
tian work  they  ought  to  do.  Schemes  are  devised  and 
organizations  are  multiplied  to  make  up  for  the  deficien- 
cies of  the  churches.  Each  new  scheme  is  to  supple- 
ment the  older  schemes  and  do  some  neglected  work  ; 
but  in  most  cases  they  prove  to  be  only  new  forms  of 
doing  old  work,  and  therefore  they  compete  with  the 
older  organizations  and  work  confusion.  They  are  all 
alike  defective,  they  do  not  realize  the  Christian  ideal, 
they  do  not  satisfy  the  Christian  heart.  There  are,  in- 
deed, many  ways  of  doing  good,  but  the  multiplication 
of  agencies  is  a  sign  of  the  dissatisfaction  and  discon- 
tent with  the  churches  which  ought  to  do  all  this  work 
that  is  done  outside  of  them,  and  much  more  work  that 
is  still  left  undone  and  for  which  no  provision  has  been 
made. 

One  of  the  most  distressing  signs  of  the  times  is  the 
failure  of  the  Church  to  evangelize  the  masses  in  the 
great  cities.  There  is  a  chasm  between  the  poorer 
..classes  and  those  who  are  comfortable  and  wealthy. 
The  Gospel  is  glad  tidings  to  the  poor ;  and  yet  the 
poor  have  not  that  interest  in  the  Gospel  that  we  have 
a  right  to  expect.  The  churches  do  not  make  sufficient 
provision  for  them,  and  do  not  reach  them  in  any  ade- 
quate measure.  The  free  churches  of  America  have 
failed  in  providing  the  Gospel  for  the  poor  by  private 
benevolence,  no  less  than  the  established  churches  of 
Europe  by  inadequate  provision  of  the  State. 

There  have  been  several  efforts  made  in  recent  times 
to  overcome  this  difficulty.  The  most  important  of 


WHITHER  ? 

these  is  the  "  Salvation  Army,"  under  the 
of  General  Booth.  Whatever  objections  there  may  be  .* 
against  the  army  in  some  of  its  doctrines  and  methods, 
there  can  be  little  doubt  that  it  has  accomplished  a 
great  work  among  the  masses  who  do  not  go  to  church. 
But  it  virtually  adds  a  new  denomination  to  the  too 
many  already  in  existence,  and  it  does  not  provide  for 
the  education  of  a  ministry  and  the  Christian  nurture  of 
its  converts. 

Another  strong  effort  has  been  put  forth  by  NLrffltcrnL. 
Moody  and  other  so-called  evangelists  who  have  pursued 
his  methods.  Great  combinations  are  made  with  great 
effort  and  great  noise  for  a  little  while  here  and  there, 
and  much  good  was  accomplished,  but  with  the  cessation 
of  the  special  efforts  everything  goes  back  to  the  former 
state  of  things.  There  is  nothing  permanent  about  these 
evangelistic  labors.  Moreover,  Mr.  Moody  and  his  fol- 
lowers are  crude  in  their  theology,  they  pursue  false 
methods  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  and  there- 
fore they  spread  abroad  not  a  few  serious  errors,  and  on 
the  whole  work  disorganization  and  confusion.  They 
do  not  edify  the  Church  of  Christ,  they  do  not  organize 
and  train  the  awakened  and  converted.  The  churches 
ought  to  do  all  this  work  of  evangelization  and  vastly 
more  that  is  left  undone. 

Efforts  have  been  made  in  recent  years,  both  in  Great 
Britain  and  America,  for  more  efficient  Christian  work 
by  the  organization  of  several  new  enterprises  in  closer 
connection  with  the  churches.  The  most  efficient  of 
these  are  the  "  Guilds  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  "  and 
the  "  Society  of  Christian  Entteavor  "  in  America.  These 
have  proved  great  blessings  to  the  young  people  and  the 
churches  that  have  employed  them,  and  are  the  most 
encouraging  signs  of  real  progress. 


4  DRIFTING. 

In  the  meanwhile  the  barriers  between  the  several 
denominations  of  Christians  have  been  broken  down 
and  pierced  in  so  many  places  that  they  no  longer  pre- 
vent the  transition  of  ministers  from  one  fold  to  an- 
other. The  removal  of  people  from  denomination  to 
denomination  has  long  been  quite  easy.  There  is  a 
deep  and  wide-spread  feeling  of  the  enormous  waste 
that  comes  from  the  multiplication  of  organizations, 
and  the  intricate  and  conflicting  machinery  of  missions 
and  benevolent  work.  The  longing  for  Christian  unity 
is  becoming  stronger  in  all  parts  of  the  Christian  Church. 

What  then  is  the  meaning  of  the  strife  between  the 
old  and  the  new,  and  what  is  to  come  out  of  this  seeth- 
ing mass  of  dissatisfaction  and  longing?  There  are 
dreadful  possibilities  of  discord,  strife,  schism,  and  chaos 
of  sects.  But  there  are  also  blessed  possibilities  of  con- 
cord, co-operation,  and  the  reunion  of  Christendom. 

The  work  of  foreign  missions  has  assumed  vast  dimen- 
sions in  our  times.  The  whole  world  has  been  opened 
to  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel.  The  Christian  Church 
has  an  opportunity  of  serving  Christ  such  as  it  has  never 
had  before  since  the  first  advent  of  our  Lord.  Great 
progress  in  foreign  missions  has  been  made  in  the  pres- 
ent century ;  but  any  one  who  looks  at  the  vastness  of 
the  heathen  world  and  the  countless  millions  who  have 
never  heard  of  the  glad  tidings  of  redemption  by  Jesus 
Christ,  and  considers  the  wealth  and  power  of  Christian 
nations,  will  see  that  the  Christian  Church  has  not 
grasped  the  situation,  and  that  Christian  people  are  in- 
curring a  dreadful  guilt  before  God,  if  the  doctrine  of 
the  lost  condition  of  thestf  heathen  be  a  true  one.  It 
may  be  asked,  which  are  the  more  guilty,  those  who 
need  the  Gospel  and  have  it  not,  or  those  who  have  the 
Gospel  and  do  not  value  it  sufficiently  to  give  it  to  those 


WHITHER?  5 

who  cannot  be  saved  without  it?  From  this  point  of 
view  it  may  be  more  tolerable  in  the  day  of  judgment 
for  Pekin,  Calcutta,  and  Yeddo  than  for  London,  New 
York,  and  Chicago. 

Those  who  are  anxiously  contending  for  the  Old 
Theology,  and  are  opposing  any  modification  of  its 
types,  do  not  discern  the  signs  of  the  times.  What  they 
mean  by  the  Old  Theology  is  in  the  most  cases  their^ 
own  old  theology,  the  theology  they  have  been  taught 
in  their  youth,  which  they  have  never  really  mastered, 
but  which  they  have  adhered  to  as  a  matter  of  tradition 
and  duty.  They  have  no  conception  how  greatly  the 
Church  has  advanced  in  the  past,  and  how  greatly  they 
themselves  differ  from  the  standards  of  the  church  to 
which  they  profess  strict  adherence. 

Any  one  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  study  any  of 
the  Christian  denominations  of  Europe  or  America  in 
its  present  condition,  and  to  compare  the  current  the- 
ology and  life  with  the  theology  and  life  of  its  founders, 
will  be  easily  convinced  that  there  have  been  great 
changes.  These  changes  have  been  due  in  part  to  the 
assimilation  of  one  denomination  to  another,  in  part 
to  the  assimilation  of  the  churches  to  the  political, 
social,  philosophical,  and  scientific  conditions  of  the 
age,  in  part  to  the  eccentricities  of  certain  influential 
leaders,  who  have  risen  up  from  time  to  time,  and  also 
in  part  to  a  general  advance  in  religion.  All  Christian 
denominations  have  drifted  from  their  standards,  and 
are  drifting  at  the  present  time.  No  one  who  has  ex- 
amined the  facts  and  considered  the  historical  situation 
can  doubt  it.  The  question  that  troubles  us  the  most 
.is— Whither?  "  ~~ 


CHAPTER  II. 
ORTHODOXY. 

ORTHODOXY  is  right  thinking  about  the  Christian 
Religion :  not  that  Orthodoxy  consists  only  in  thinking, 
but  that  right  thinking  involves  right  teaching  and  right 
acting. 

No  thinking  can  be  right  that  is  not  in  accordance 
with  the  truth.  Truth  is  the  daughter  of  God.  She  is 
one,  and  she  cannotbe  rightly  known  in  parts  or  sec- 
tions; jor  no  one  can  rightly  know  the  various  parts 
who  does  not  see  them  centering  in  their  unity ;  and  no 
now  their  unity  who  does  not  compre- 
the  variety  that  springs  therefrom.  Hence  all 
human  orthodoxy  is  partial  and  incomplete.  No  one 
can  be  entirely  orthodox,  as  no  one  can  be  altogether 
good,  save  God  only. 

Orthodoxy,  so  far  as  man  is  concerned,  is  relative  and 
defective;  it  is  measured  by  the  knowledge  that  he  has 
of  the  truth.  Man's  knowledge  is  not  a  constant  quan- 
tity. It  varies  in  different  men,  in  different  nations  and 
societies,  and  still  more  in  different  epochs  of  history. 

The  Pharisees  claimed  to  be  orthodox,  and  in  their 
pretended  orthodoxy  condemned  the  Saviour  of  the 
world.  The  Greek  Church  claims  to  be  orthodox,  and 
has  remained  stationary  in  its  stereotyped  forms  of  think- 
ing for  centuries.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  parades 
its  unity,  catholicity,  and  orthodoxy,  and  yet  it  perse- 
cuted the  pious  and  used  every  diabolical  art  to  prevent 
(6) 


WHITHER  ?  7 

the  Reformation  of  the  Church.  The  Lutheran  scho- 
lastics claimed  the  possession  of  the  pure  doctrine,  and 
in  the  name  of  orthodoxy  made  war  upon  the  vital 
piety  of  Spener  and  the  Pietists.  The  Reformed  scho- 
lastics in  the  interest  of  orthodoxy  divided  the  Church 
into  hostile  camps,  and  their  successors  have  been  busy 
sowing  discord,  making  strife,  battling  with  science, 
philosophy,  art,  and  every  form  of  human  thinking,  and 
thus  rending  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  into  numerous 
sects.  Orthodoxy  has  been  made  the  pretext  for  op- 
pression and  crime,  the  foe  to  progress  in  science  and  the- 
ology, the  enemy  of  the  truth  in  all  ages.  Orthodoxy 
is  a  good  thing,  one  of  the  best  things,  but  it  has  been 
put  to  shame  by  the  great  number  of  counterfeits  that 
have  circulated  in  the  world. 

ORTHODOXY  AND  ORTHODOXISM. 

It  is  necessary  to  distinguish  between  true  orthodoxy 
and  false  orthodoxy — between  orthodoxy  and  orthodox- 
ism.  Orthodoxism  assumes  to  know  the  truth  and  is 
unwilling  to  learn  ;  it  is  haughty  and  arrogant,  assuming 
the  divine  prerogatives  of  infallibility  and  inerrancy;  it 
hates  all  truth  that  is  unfamiliar  to  it,  and  persecutes  it 
to  the  uttermost.  But  orthodoxy  loves  the  truth.  It 
is  ever  anxious  to  learn,  for  it  knows  how  greatly  the 
truth  of  God  transcends  human  knowledge.  It  follows 
the  truth,  as  Ruth  did  Naomi,  wherever  it  leads.  It  is 
meek,  lowly,  and  reverent.  It  is  full  of  charity  and  love. 
It  does  not  recognize  an  infallible  pope  :  it  does  not  bow 
to  an  infallible  theologian.  It  has  one  only  teacher  and 
master — the  enthroned  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ — and  ex- 
pects to  be  guided  by  His  Spirit  into  all  truth. 

Orthodoxy  has  a  different  meaning  in  different  lands 
and  different  ages,  depending  partly  on  the  stage  of 


g  ORTHODOXY. 

the  education  of  our  race,  and  partly  upon  the  different 
race  or  national  characteristics  and  the  temperaments 
that  distinguish  mankind. 

There  must  be  some  objective  standard,  some  com- 
prehensive statement  by  which  the  relative  orthodoxy 
of  men  may  be  estimated  and  measured.  The  absolute 
standard  of  human  orthodoxy  is  the  sum  total  of  truth 
repealed  by  God.  God  reveals  truth  in  several  spheres ; 
in  universal  nature,  in  the  constitution  of  mankind,  in 
the  history  of  our  race,  and  in  the  sacred  Scriptures,  but 
above  all  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 

If  a  man  has  mastered  this  entire  revelation  of  the 
truth,  all  that  science,  philosophy,  history,  the  sacred 
Scriptures  and  Jesus  Christ  can  give  him,  then,  and  then 
only,  he  may  claim  to  be  entirely  orthodox.  His  ortho- 
doxy has  revealed  its  limit  and  its  perfection.  But  until 
that  desirable  result  has  been  attained,  orthodoxy  is  va- 
riable and  progressive ;  it  is  partial  and  incomplete,  and 
must  go  on  to  reach  perfection  and  completion.  Hence, 
for  all  practical  purposes,  Orthodoxy  and  Progressive 
Orthodoxy  are^  convertible  terms. 

That  man  or  church  whose  orthodoxy  does  not  make 
progress,  ceases  thereby  to  be  orthodox,  and  from  the 
necessities  of  the  case  becomes  heterodox.  He  refuses 
to  accept  the  truth  that  is  offered  him  by  the  advances 
in  science,  philosophy,  history,  and  the  more  exact  study 
of  the  sacred  Scriptures.  He  is  heterodox,  in  that  he 
falls  short  of  the  revealed  truth  that  the  truly  orthodox 
have  already  accepted.  He  is  also  heterodox  in  all  that 
he  does  accept  and  teach  ;  for  he  keeps  his  thinking  and 
teaching  in  the  shadow  of  stereotyped  forms  of  thought ; 
he  declines  to  bring  his  knowledge  into  the  full  light  of 
the  truth,  which  like  the  sun  has  risen  higher  toward  its 
zenith ;  he  prefers  his  darkness  to  the  light  of  God  ;  he 


WHITHER?  9 

fears  to  look  the  truth  in  the  eyes,  lest  he  should  be 
convicted  of  error,  and  be  compelled  to  change  his  po- 
sition, his  convictions  and  statements.  Intellectual 
timidity  and  cowardice  are  not  consistent  with  Chris- 
tian orthodoxy.  True  orthodoxy  is  brave,  manly,  and 
aggressive ;  it  marches  forward. 

Truth  is  so  connected  and  interwoven  in  an  organism 
that  an  advance  in  any  department  exerts  an  important 
influence  upon  the  whole  system.  Any  man  or  church 
that  refuses  to  accept  the  discoveries  of  science  or  the 
truths  of  philosophy  or  the  facts  of  history,  or  the  new 
light  that  breaks  forth  from  the  Word  of  God  to  the 
devout  student,  on  the  pretence  that  it  conflicts  with  his 
orthodoxy  or  the  orthodoxy  of  the  standards  of  his 
church,  prefers  the  traditions  of  man  to  the  truth  of 
God,  has  become  unfaithful  to  the  calling  and  aims  of 
the  Christian  disciple,  has  left  the  companionship  of 
Jesus  and  His  apostles  and  has  joined  the  Pharisees, 
the  enemies  of  the  truth.  He  that  is  born  of  God 
heareth  God's  words.  The  man  who  has  within  him  the 
spirit  of  truth,  and  is  following  the  guidance  of  the 
divine  Spirit  of  truth,  will  hail  the  truth  and  embrace  it 
whether  he  has  seen  it  before  or  not ;  and  he  will  not  be 
stayed  by  the  changes,  that  he  fears  may  be  necessary, 
in  his  preconceptions  or  prejudices,  or  his  civil,  social,  or 
ecclesiastical  position.  A  traditional  attitude  of  mind 
is  one  of  the  worst  foes  to  orthodoxy. 

ORTHODOXY  AND   THE   SCRIPTURES. 

We  have  an  infallible  standard  of  orthodoxy  in  the 
sacred  Scriptures.  God  himself,  speaking  in  His  holy 
Word  to  the  believer,  is  the  infallible  guide  in  all  ques- 
tions of  religion,  doctrine,  and  morals.  But  the  sacred 
Scriptures  do  not  decide  for  us  all  questions  of  ortho- 


10  ORTHODOXY. 

doxy.  They  do  not  answer  the  problems  of  science, 
of  philosophy,  or  of  history.  They  do  not  cover  the  whole 
ground  of  theology.  There  are  important  matters  in 
which  the  Christian  religion  enters  into  the  spheres  of 
science,  philosophy,  and  history  where  the  divine  reve- 
lation given  in  these  departments  of  knowledge  is  either 
presupposed  by  the  sacred  Scriptures,  or  else  has  been 
left  by  them  for  mankind  to  investigate  and  use  in  the 
successive  constructions  of  Christian  theology,  which 
have  gone  on  since  the  apostolic  age,  and  which  will 
continue  until  the  end  of  the  world. 

The  sacred  Scriptures  are  not  the  only  source  of 
Christian  theology;  they  were  given  in  the  midst  of 
.other  sources  of  knowledge  to  enlighten  us  in  the  fields 
where  these  were  insufficient.  The  New  Testament 
does  not  give  us  the  entire  instruction  of  Jesus  Christ, 
the  sum  total  of  apostolic  doctrine. 

The  Bible  does  not  decide  all  questions  of  religion. 
It  does  not  decide  the  mode  of  baptism ;  it  does  not 
clearly  determine  whether  infants  are  to  be  baptized  ;  it 
does  not  definitely  confirm  the  change  from  the  Sabbath 
to  the  Lord's  day ;  it  does  not  determine  the  question 
of  liturgical  worship ;  it  does  not  clearly  fix  the  mode 
of  church  government.  It  leaves  a  great  number  of 
questions  upon  which  Christians  are  divided  undeter- 
mined. 

The  Bible  does  not  decide  all  questions  of  doctrine.  It 
does  not  give  us  the  mode  of  creation,  the  origin  of  sin 
and  evil,  the  psychological  construction  of  human  na- 
ture, the  reasons  of  the  divine  election,  the  mode  of 
life  in  the  middle  state.  If  the  current  systematic  the- 
ology were  reduced  to  its  Biblical  dimensions  and  then 
extended  so  as  to  cover  the  Biblical  ground,  it  would 
be  so  different  that  few  would  recognize  it. 


WHITHEBt  u 

The  Bible  does  not  decide  all  questions  of  morals.  It 
does  not  decide  against  slavery  or  polygamy ;  it  does 
not  determine  a  thousand  political  and  social  questions 
that  have  sprung  up  in  our  day. 

Doubtless  there  are  general  principles  given  in  the 
Bible  that  may  guide  us  to  the  solution  of  all  these 
questions.  But  it  is  high  time  for  men  to  cease  con- 
founding Biblical  statements  with  the  conclusions  that 
they  have  drawn  from  these  statements.  The  religion, 
doctrine,  and  morals  of  the  Bible  are  very  different  from 
fne  current  religion,  doctrines,  and  morals  of  the  Church, 
whether  expressed  by  systematic  statements,  or  in  the 
lives  and  teachings  of  the  people. 

None  of  the  older  divines  gave  the  human  reason  its 
proper  place  in  religion  and  theology.  They  were  all 
too  much  involved  in  the  older  methods  of  exegesis 
which  sought  to  prove  everything  possible  from  the 
Bible.  It  was  necessary  that  there  should  be  a  long 
conflict  with  Deism  in  order  to  eliminate  Natural  The- 
ology as  a  distinct  theological  discipline ;  and  then  the  long 
conflict  with  Rationalism  in  order  to  establish  the  place 
of  Speculative  Theology.  The  Bible  does  not  war  against 
the  truths  of  nature,  of  the  reason,  or  of  history.  It  rather 
concentrates  their  instruction  in  its  central  Revelation. 

The  Scriptures  shine  with  heavenly  light  in  the  midst 
of  the  sources  of  human  knowledge.  They  cannot  be 
understood  alone  by  themselves.  It  is  probable  that  the 
reason  why  the  Scriptures  have  not  been  more  com- 
pletely mastered  in  our  time,  is  that  the  divine  truth  re- 
vealed in  other  spheres  has  not  been  brought  into  proper 
relation  with  the  Scriptures.  The  sacred  Scriptures  are 
for  the  whole  world  and  for  all  time.  As  man  grows  in 
the  knowledge  of  nature,  of  himself  and  of  history,  he 
will  grow  in  the  knowledge  of  the  Scriptures. 


12  ORTHODOXY. 

The  sources  of  knowledge  are  so  interrelated  that  they 
cannot  be  entirely  understood  apart  from  the  whole 
organism  of  truth.  The  Reformation  would  have  been 
impossible  without  the  new  birth  of  learning  that  pre- 
ceded  it — the  emancipation  of  the  human  spirit  from  the 

^.bondage  of  mediaeval  scholasticism.  The  present  advance 
s  in  science  is  preparing  the  way  for  another  reformation 

£.     01  the  Ch-urch — it  is  emancipating  us  from  the  bondage 
"*  of  Protestant  scholasticism. 

We  are  well  aware  that  there  are  some  theologians, 
especially  in  America,  who  have  claimed  that  their  sys- 
tem of  theology  is  altogether  Biblical,  and  who  have 
made  it  their  boast  that  they  have  taught  nothing  new 
in  theology.  But,  to  say  the  least,  these  theologians  are 
mistaken  ;  they  have  deceived  themselves,  and  they  de- 
lude others.  In  fact  they  have  restated  the  scholastic 
formulas  of  Protestantism  ;  they  have  appropriated  from 
other  spheres  of  learning  all  the  truth  that  seemed  to 
suit  their  purpose  and  that  could  be  used  in  their  sys- 
tem. They  have  done  precisely  the  same  in  their  use  of 
the  sacred  Scriptures. 

Biblical  theology  is  a  recent  branch  of  theological  sci- 
ence  that  sprang  from  the  necessity  of  distinguishing 
between  the  theology  of  the  Bible  and  the  theology  of 
the  theologians.*  Any  one  who  has  taken  the  trouble 
to  compare  the  two  has  noticed  the  difference.  He  finds 
that  each  Biblical  writer  has  his  own  range  of  ideas  and 
each  writing  its  own  scope,  and  that  it  is  necessary  to 
gather  this  vast  variety  in  a  higher  unity  in  order  to 
comprehend  the  sum  total  of  the  theology  of  the  Bible. 
He  also  sees  that  every  age  has  its  own  circle  of  thought 
and  every  theologian  his  point  of  view  and  every  Chris- 


*  Briggs'  "  Biblical  Study,"  pp.  367 


WHITHER?  13 

tian  church  its  peculiar  mission.  The  sum  of  Biblical  the* 
ology  is  not  represented  in  any  creed  or  any  theologian. 
Many  Biblical  doctrines  were  overlooked  by  the  ancient 
and  the  mediaeval  churches,  and  were  first  hrn^gjii-  in<-n 
their  influential  position  at  the  Reformation.  But  the 
student  of  Biblical  theology  finds  that  the  Reformers 
built  also  on  too  narrow  ground,  chiefly  upon  the  epis- 
tles to  the  Romans  and  Galatians.  There  are  not  a  few 
who  still  find  the  theology  of  Paul  in  the  epistle  to  the 
Romans,  and  build  their  system  upon  that.  But  in  fact, 
no  one  can  understand  the  doctrine  of  Paul  who  has  not 
advanced  beyond  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  and  appre- 
hended the  more  developed  Christology  of  the  epistles 
of  the  imprisonment.  Protestantism,  by  building  too 
exclusively  on  Paul  and  on  his  earlier  epistles  at  that, 
can  never  attain  the  climax  of  Christian  orthodoxy 
until  it  enlarges  its  horizon  by  a  more  faithful  use  of 
the  Pauline  epistles  of  the  imprisonment,  and  also 
of  the  theology  of  James,  Peter,  and  John.  Our  ortho- 
doxy cannot  be  Biblical  orthodoxy  until  it  has  compre- 
hended the  sum  total  of  the  theology  of  the  Bible  both 
in  its  variety  and  unity.  But  even  if  this  maximum 
were  attained,  the  maximum  of  Christian  orthodoxy 
would  not  be  reached.  Indeed  the  Bible  itself  cannot 
be  thus,  mastered  unless  a  corresponding  advance  is 
made  in  other  departments.  Even  Christ  does  not 
open  up  the  Scriptures  to  His  people  until  they  are 
prepared  to  understand  and  use  the 'knowledge  given 
to  them. 

Christian  theology  must  be  constructed  by  the  induc- 
tion of  divine  truth  from  all  spheres  of  information. 
There  is  no  system  of  theology  which  has  not  been  in- 
fluenced by  the  discoveries  of  science,  the  principles 
of  philosophy,  and  the  events  of  history,  as  well  as  by  the 


14  ORTHODOXY. 

temperaments  and  characteristic  features  of  the  individ 
ual  writer,  his  nation  and  race. 

As  the  Scottish  commissioners  to  the  Westminster 
Assembly  well  said : 

"  All  the  books  of  God  are  perfect,  the  book  of  life,  the  book 
of  nature,  the  book  of  providence,  and  especially  the  book  of 
Scripture,  which  was  dyted  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  be  a  perfect 
directory  to  all  the  churches  unto  the  second  coming  of  Jesus 
Christ,  but  so  that  it  presupposeth  the  light  and  law  of  nature, 
or  rules  of  common  prudence,  to  be  our  guide  in  circumstances 
or  things  local,  temporal,  and  personal."  * 

But  unfortunately  there  are  not  a  few  theologians  who 
have  mingled  bad  science,  false  philosophy,  traditional 
history,  and  incorrect  exegesis  with  the  genuine  truth  of 
the  Word  of  God  ;  they  have  given  forth  this  mixture  of 
wood,  hay,  straw,  and  stubble  with  the  fine  gold,  as  the 
standard  of  orthodoxy,  and  have  presumed  to  set  it  up 
as  a  bulwark  against  the  vast  and  profound  discoveries 
of  modern  science.  We  are  not  surprised  that  we  are 
hearing  shrieks  and  groans  as  we  see  these  airy  struc- 
tures disappearing  in  the  flames  that  have  been  kindled 
by  the  torch  of  Truth,  who  is  tired  of  such  foolery. 

Such  theologians  have  assumed  an  unfriendly  atti- 
tude to  science,  philosophy,  and  history,  and  even  the 
scientific  study  of  the  Scriptures.  They  have  refused  to 
taste  the  fruits  of  modern  methods  and  modern  learning. 
They  have  appropriated  with  marvellous  caprice  what- 
ever seemed  to  suit  their  purpose.  They  have  delighted 
in  any  little  flaws  and  mistakes  of  scholars.  They  have 
stoutly  resisted  everything  that  was  antagonistic  to  their 
traditional  system.  They  have  been  impatient  of  new 


*  "  Reformation  of  Church  Govt.  in  Scotland  cleared  from  some  mistakes  and 
prejudices  by  the  Commissioners  of  the  Gen.  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land now  in  London,"  1644. 


WHITHER?  15 


truths  and  branded  them  as  "novelties."     They 

made  Christian  theology  the  enemy  of  human  learning  . 

so  far  as  they  have  been  able  to   exert  an  influence. 

They  have  been  the  true  successors  of  the  Pharisees.^ 

They  have  zealously  contended  to  do  what  the  Roman^-,//^  _ 

Catholic  hierarchy  failed  in  doing.     They  have  not  ^u<^-^       ^ 

ceeded  in  retarding  human  learning,  but  they  have  alien-  / 

ated  a  large  proportion  of  the  scholars  of  the  world  from 

the  Christian  Church.     They  have  wrought  serious  dam- 

age to  the  science  of   Christian  theology.     Such  pre- 

tended orthodoxy  is  real  heterodoxy.     It  is  to  blame 

for  the  dethronement  of  theology  from  its  rightful  posi- 

tion  as  the  queen  of  the  sciences.     God  has  dethroned 

her  for  a  season  as  He  did  Nebuchadnezzar,  because  she 

exalted  herself  against  the  truth  of  God,  but  after  a  sea- 

son of  humiliation  she  will  be  enthroned  again. 

The  sacred  Scriptures  contain  a  divine  revelation  to 
mankind  for  all  ages.  They  are  a  treasury  of  grace  to 
train  our  race  and  guide  the  world  until  the  second  ad- 
vent of  Jesus  Christ.  What  theologian  or  what  Chris- 
tian Church  has  mastered  them  ?  Through  all  the  ages 
of  Church  History  there  has  been  a  progressive  appro- 
priation of  the  Word  of  God  in  worship,  doctrine,  and 
life.  The  Scripture  and  man  are  counterparts.  The 
Bible  contains  its  special  revelation  for  every  man  and 
every  race  and  every  epoch,  —  for  the  entire  world.  It  is 
on  this  account  a  unique  book,  a  divine  book.  Has 
Protestantism  attained  the  maximum  of  Christian  doc- 
trine ?  Has  Calvinism  solved  the  mysteries  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion?  Has  Puritanism  or  Methodism  trans- 
formed the  world?  These  religious  movements  have 
all  been  blessed  by  God  and  have  wrought  great  good 
by  their  progressive  orthodoxy.  They  have  each  in 
turn  been  opposed  by  a  pretended  orthodoxy  that  had 


16  ORTHODOXY. 

apostatized  from  real  orthodoxy.  In  every  case  these 
religious  movements,  like  all  the  religious  movements 
that  preceded  them,  eventually  became  stereotyped  in 
a  dead  orthodoxy  that  blocked  the  way  of  further  prog- 
ress. Greek  Christianity  could  not  restrain  the  advance 
of  Roman  Christianity,  and  Roman  Christianity  did  not 
prevent  the  advance  of  German  Christianity  in  the  great 
Reformation.  The  entire  world  is  now  open  to  the  Gos- 
pel of  Jesus  Christ.  Asia  and  Africa,  America  and  the 
islands  of  the  sea  are  to  unite  with  Europe  in  the  wor- 
ship of  Jesus  Christ  and  the  study  of  the  mysteries  of 
our  religion.  Can  we  suppose  that  our  Teutonic  type 
of  Christianity  will  be  imposed  upon  the  Oriental  and 
African  races  ?  Is  there  any  prospect  whatever  that  the 
Greek  and  Latin  and  Slavonic  races  will  adopt  the  Teu- 
tonic type?  Let  us  not  deceive  ourselves.  The  Bible 
is  for  the  world.  The  Christian  religion  is  for  all  man- 
kind. The  ultimate  Christianity  that  will  suit  our  race 
will  be  as  much  higher  than  Protestantism  as  Protest- 
antism is  higher  than  Romanism.  Yes,  it  will  be  vastly 
more  exalted ;  for  it  will  be  so  comprehensive  that  all 
the  types  of  Christianity  will  advance  unto  it  as  the  ulti- 
mate form  for  which  they  have  all  been  preparing 
through  the  centuries  under  the  guidance  of  the  divine 
Spirit. 

There  is  more  light  to  break  forth  from  the  Word  of 
God  to  illuminate  our  religion,  our  doctrines,  and  our 
life,  and  make  them  higher  and  more  glorious.  The  di- 
vine Spirit  will  enlighten  the  future  generations  still  more 
than  He  has  enlightened  the  past  generations.  He  is 
the  guide  of  the  Church  to  the  end  of  the  world.  Has 
orthodoxy  made  progress  in  the  past  ?  It  will  make 
greater  progress  in  the  future.  Presbyterianism  is  not 
the  last  word  of  God  to  man.  God  has  something  vastly 


WHITHER?  1Y 

better  for  us  than  Calvinism.  Puritanism  is  not  the  ul- 
timate torm  ol  Christianity.  The  Anglo-Catholic  revival 
has  not  attained  the  ideal  of  Christ. 

The  prejudices  of  traditionalism  cannot  stay  the  ad- 
vancing truth  of  God.  Every  form  of  Christianity  that 
has  opposed  the  progress  of  doctrines  in  the  past  has 
been  cast  aside  and  left  behind  in  the  race.  Are  Prot- 
estantism, Calvinism,  Puritanism,  Presbyterianism,  Meth- 
odism, and  Anglo-Catholicism  to  have  the  same  fate  ? 
They  have  all  come  to  a  halt  in  religious,  doctrinal,  and 
ethical  progress.  They  have  all  alike  become  stereo- 
typed in  church  order  and  types  of  doctrine.  But 
there  is  a  stir  amid  the  dry  bones.  What  is  to  come 
out  of  it  all  ?  Is  there  to  be  another  Reformation  that 
will  throw  them  aside  ?  Is  there  to  issue  forth  a  new 
orthodoxy  leaving  the  reacting  heterodoxy  in  its  present 
lifeless  position?  Or  will  the  vital  forces  that  are  at  work 
in  the  Protestant  Churches  be  sufficient  to  revive  them 
and  lead  them  on  to  a  higher  destiny?  It  would  seem 
that  the  types  of  Protestantism  have  still  a  work  to  do 
in  the  world.  We  believe  that  the  Churches  of  Protest- 
antism are  ripening  for  a  better  future  in  which  all  the 
Churches  of  the  world  will  share. 

God  is  speaking'  to  His  Church  with  an  imperative 
voice  and  commanding  it  to  go  forward.  The  progress 
of  learning  in  our  day  has  been  marvellous.  The  Bible 
itself  has  been  flooded  with  the  new  light  cast  upon  it 
from  all  directions  by  modern  discoveries.  The  spirit  of 
research  animates  a  large  number  of  professors  and  stu- 
dents of  theology  and  Christian  ministers  and  Christian 
people  of  all  ranks.  These  are  still  in  the  minority. 

There  is  a  freer  theological  atmosphere  in  England 
and  Scotland,  but  in  Ireland  and  America  Orthodoxism 
and  Traditionalism  are  still  predominant,  and  thinkers 


18  ORTHODOXY. 


•I  ^Xlhri 
i  thro 


are  obliged  to  work  cautiously.  But  there  are  not  a  few 
in  America  who  are  striving  earnestly  to  advance  in 

ristian  orthodoxy.     Exegetical   theology  is   passing 

rough  a  transformation.  The  Bible  is  studied  by 
j^-1  theological  students  as  "never  before.  Historical  theol- 
'  ogy  is  beginning  to  share  in  the  same  movement.  Prac- 
tical theology  is  also  active  and  aggressive.  Systematic 
theology-alone  is  pulling  back.  But  this  will  not  endure. 
There  are  noble  Christian  theologians  who  are  at  work 
reconstructing  the  system  of  doctrine.  The  old  tradi- 
tional systems  are  the  rallying-points  of  Orthodoxism 
and  Traditionalism.  They  do  not  realize  the  facts  of 
the  case.  They  do  not  see  what  is  manifest  to  the  rest 
of  the  world  —  that  the  Traditional  Orthodoxy  has  been 
undermined  and  honey-combed  by  the  recent  Biblical 
and  historical  studies,  as  well  as  by  the  newer  science 
and  philosophy.  Unless  it  can  be  strengthened  by  bet- 
ter exegesis  and  history  and  be  more  conformed  to  truth 
and  fact,  it  will  soon  crumble  and  perish.  We  greatly 
need  a  system  of  theology  that  will  embrace  the  results 
of  modern  learning. 

Dogmatic  Theology  in  Great  Britain  and  America  has 
been  too  long  in  the  bondage  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury  Scholasticism  and  the  eighteenth  century  Apolo- 
'  getics.  The  time  has  come  for  it  to  burst  these  bonds 
ancT  march  forward.  It  ought  to  run  with  all  its  might 
and  march  at  the  head  of  the  column  of  modern  learning. 
Christ  is  the  king  of  a  kingdom  of  truth,  and  His  fol- 
lowers ought  to  be  ashamed  to  drag  His  banner  in  the 
rear. 

The  battle  against  science,  philosophy,  exegesis,  and 
history  must  come  to  an  end.  All  truth  should  be 
welcomed,  from  whatever  source,  and  built  into  the 
structure  of  Christian  doctrine.  The  attitude  of  Tradi- 


WHITHER?  19 

tional  Orthodoxy  should  be  abandoned  as  real  hetero- 
doxy, and  the  attitude  of  Advancing  Orthodoxy  assumed 
as  the  true  orthodoxy. 

ORTHODOXY   AND   THE   SYMBOLS   OF  FAITH. 

But  have  we  not  standards  of  orthodoxy  in  the  Con- 
fessions of  Faith  and  the  Symbolical  Books  of  the 
Church  ?  Certainly  !  Most  Christian  Churches  have 
such  symbolical  books,  which  constitute  the  standard  of 
orthodoxy  for  their  own  church  organizations  and  deter- 
mine what  is  Lutheran,  Reformed,  Presbyterian,  Angli- 
can, or  Congregational  orthodoxy.  But  they  do  not  de- 
termine Christian  Orthodoxy.  Christian  orthodpxy  is 
defined  by  those  symbols  in  which  the  universal  Church 
unites.  These  symbols  are  the  Apostles'  Creed  and  the 
treeds  of  the  great  GEcumenical  Councils.  There  was 
no  symbolical  advance  during  the  Middle  Ages.  The 
sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries  were  centuries  of 
great  symbolical  progress.  But  this  progress  consisted 
in  defining  the  distinctive  faiths  of  the  different  denom- 
inations  that  sprang  into  existence  at  the  Reformation. 
The  Roman  Catholic  Church  defined  its  faith  at 


Council  of  Trent.  Its  decrees  define  orthodoxy  in  "the 
Roman  Catholic  Church.  But  their  distinctive  princi- 
ples are  heterodoxy  to  Protestants.  The  Lutherans  de- 
fined their  faith  in  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  a  later 
Scholastic  Lutheranism  eliminated  itself  from  the  milder 
Lutherans  and  Melancthonians  in  the  so-called  Formula 
of  Concord.  The  Reformed  Churches  have  no  common 
creed,  but  formulated  a  number  of  symbols  in  different 
countries,  the  most  important  of  which  are  the  Heidelberg 
Catechism,  the  Second  Helvetic,  Belgian,  French,  and 
Scottish  Confessions,  and  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of 
England^  These  agree  in  the  main,  and  there  is  a  con- 


20  ORTHODOXY. 

sensus  that  is  not  difficult  to  define.  Scholastic  Calvin- 
ism eliminated  itself  from  the  milder  Calvinism,  and  the 
Arminians  in  the  Decrees  of  the  Synod  of  Port.  And 
't-*\hus  each  branch  of  the  Church  of  Christ  in  Western 
Europe  defined  its  own  terms  of  orthodoxy,  which  ex- 
cluded all  who  could  not  subscribe  to  them. 

Protestantism  is  divided  into  numerous  sects,  and 
is  confronted  with  innumerable  tests  of  orthodoxy. 
There  is  a  consensus  of  Protestant  opinion  which,  if  it 
could  be  defined  and  accepted  by  all,  would  be  vastly 
more  valuable  than  the  best  of  the  symbols  or  than  all 
of  them  combined. 

The  most  elaborate  and  definite  of  all  the  creeds 
of  Protestantism  are  the  Westminster  symbols.  The 
churches  that  adhere  to  these  are  the  strictest  in  their 
adherence  to  the  traditional  orthodoxy.  But  it  is  clear 
to  any  one  who  has  studied  the  genesis  of  the  West- 
minster standards  and  the  doctrinal  history  of  Great 
Britain  and  America,  that  the  Presbyterian  and  Congrega- 
tional churches  have  drifted  in  many  important  respects 
from  the  Westminster  orthodoxy. 

This  drift  has  been  gradual  and  imperceptible  under 
the  leadership  of  able  divines  who  did  not  take  the 
trouble  to  study  the  Westminster  divines,  the  authors 
of  the  standards,  but  who  relied  on  their  a  priori  logic 
for  the  correct  interpretation  of  the  standards  as  well  as 
the  Scriptures,  and  accordingly  they  interpreted  both 
the  Scriptures  and  the  standards  to  correspond  with  that 
system  of  scholastic  Calvinism  which  had  become  to 
them  the  rule  of  faith.  It  was  an  evil  day  for  Presby- 
terianism  when  the  Puritan  and  Presbyterian  fathers 
were  laid  aside,  and  the  scholastic  divines  of  Switzer- 
land and  Holland  were  introduced  into  our  universities 
and  colleges  as  the  text-books  of  theology,  and  the 


WHITHER?  21 

tests  of  Orthodoxy.  The  Westminster  symbols  were 
buried  under  a  mass  of  foreign  dogma.  Francis  Tur- 
retine  became  the  rule  of  faith,  and  the  Westminster 
Confession  was  interpreted  to  correspond  with  his  scho- 
lastic elaborations  and  refinements. 

The  same  reasons  that  called  forth  the  discipline  of 
Biblical  Theology,  brought  into  being  the  discipline  of 
Symbolics,  for  it  became  necessary  not  only  to  distin- 
guish the  theology  of  the  Bible  from  the  theology  of  the 
schools,  but  also  to  discriminate  between  the  theology 
of  the  symbols  and  the  theology  of  the  theologians. 

There  is  a  tendency  in  all  religions  to  make  the  tradi- 
tional interpretation  of  the  schools  the  tests  of  orthodoxy. 
This  was  the  case  with  the  Jews  who  buried  the  Old  Tes- 
tament under  the  traditions  of  the  elders  and  that  mass 
of  elaboration  of  definitions  that  has,  been  gathered  in  the 
Talmud.  In  the  Church  the  Gospel  was  shrouded  by  the 
teachings  of  the  Fathers,  and  orthodoxy  was  measured  by 
Augustine  and  Aquinas  rather  than  the  JNew  Testament. 

The  Reformation  introduced  a  new  age  of  the  world, 
and  made  a  grand  step  forward  in  the  progress  of  Chris- 
tianity. But  the  Pharisaic  spirit  entered  into  Protest- 
antism and  the  process  of  decay  began.  Soon  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Reformation  and  the  doctrines  of  the 
Confessions  and  Catechisms  were  covered  by  a  mass  of 
scholastic  dogma  constructed  out  of  the  speculations  of 
little  popes  who  came  into  power  in  the  several  national 
churches  of  the  Reformed  and  Lutheran  types.  Prot- 
estantism was  stiffened,  hardened,  and  paralyzed.  The 
counter-reformation  set  in,  and  the  Protestant  churches 
exhausted  themselves  with  internal  strifes  that  have  con- 
tinued until  the  present  time. 

A  new  reformation  is  necessary.  The  temple  of  Theol- 
ogy must  be  cleansed  from  this  theological  rubbish  ;  the 


22  ORTHODOXY. 

traders  should  be  driven  out ;  the  fences  erected  between 
the  denominations  should  be  broken  down.  Heroic  men 
are  needed  who  shall  burst  the  bonds  that  fetter  the  Word 
of  God  and  retard  the  progress  of  Christian  theology  and 
life. 

The  Puritan  rpfr>rmaf?r>nr  called  the  second  reforma- 
tion, was  thejast  great  confessional  movement  of  Prot- 
estantism".  It  was  a  fresh  outburst  of  divine  life  in  the 
churches  of  Great  Britain.  But,  alas,  Puritans  soon  be- 
came puritanical,  and  the  broad,  catholic,  progressive 
theology  of  the  Westminster  standards  was  straitened 
and  narrowed  by  the  unworthy  descendants  of  such 
heroic  sires.  They  no  longer  studied  the  Westminster 
divines,  but  sought  consolation  in  the  muddy  pools  of 
Dutch  and  Swiss  scholasticism.  Under  the  guidance  of 
these  alien  masters  they  abandoned  the  distinctive  prin- 
ciples of  Puritanism,  they  fell  back  from  the  lofty  ethical 
ideas  of  the  Westminster  symbols,  they  introduced  low 
views  of  the  church  and  the  sacraments,  they  strained 
and  stiffened  the  hard  doctrines  of  Calvinism,  and  finally 
marred  the  essential  principles  of  the  Reformation. 

We  do  not  claim  that  all  of  the  work  of  the  later 
dogmatists  in  Great  Britain  and  America  is  bad.  In 
this  mass  of  dogma,  some  of  it  extra-confessional,  some 
of  it  infra-confessional,  and  some  of  it  contra-confes- 
sional,  there  is  a  mixture  of  truth  and  error.  Doubtless 
there  has  been  real  progress  in  some  directions,  but 
there  is  an  immense  mass  of  crude  speculation  and  of 
false  reasoning.  A  thorough  critical  sifting  is  neces- 
sary. Advancing  orthodoxy  will  reaffirm  the  authority 
of  the  Protestant  symbols,  strip  off  the  mass  of  hetero- 
geneous dogma  heaped  upon  them  by  dogmaticians, 
deprive  this  stuff  of  its  spurious  claims  of  orthodoxy,  and 
deal  with  it  as  it  deserves  in  truth  and  righteousness. 


CHAPTER  III. 
CHANGES. 

WE  propose  to  show  that  the  American  Presbyterian 
Church  has  drifted  away  from  the  Westminster  Stand- 
ards. This  will  appear  in  several  successive  chapters  of 
this  book.  It  is  first  necessary  to  consider  the  general 
attitude  of  the  Traditional  orthodoxy  to  these  Standards. 

WHAT  ARE   THE   WESTMINSTER   STANDARDS? 

The  Westminster  Assembly  met  in  accordance  with 
an  ordinance  of  the  English  Parliament,  July  i,  164.3, 

"  to  conferre  and  treat  amongst  themselves  of  such  matters  and 
things  touching  and  concerning  the  liturgy,  discipline,  and  gov- 
ernment of  the  Church  of  England,  or  the  vindicating  and  clear- 
ing of  the  doctrine  of  the  same  from  all  false  aspersions  and  mis- 
constructions." * 

The  Westminster  divines  were  chosen  to  represent  all 
the  counties  of  England  and  Wales,  the  two  universities, 
and  all  parties  except  the  extreme  high  churchmen  of 
the  type  of  Laud,  and  the  Anabaptists.  The  Church  of 
Scotland  sent  commissioners,  with  the  aim  of  "  settling 
of  the  so-much-desired  union  of  the  whole  island  in  one 
forme  of  Church  government,  one  confession  of  faith, 
one  common  catechism,  and  one  directory  for  the  wor- 
ship of  God."  These  entered  the  Westminster  Assem- 
bly, September  I5th.  On  Monday,  September  2$th,  the 

*  See  Briggs'  "  Documentary  History  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,"  Presby- 
terian Review,  I.,  pp.  134  seq, 

(23) 


24:  CHANGES. 

entire  body  with  the  House  of  Commons  took  the 
solemn  league  and  covenant  in  St.  Margaret's  Church, 
Westminster,  including  among  other  things  the  vow : 

"We  shall  endeavor  to  bring  the  churches  of  God  in  the 
three  kingdoms  to  the  nearest  conjunction  and  uniformity  in 
religion,  confession  of  faith,  form  of  church  government,  direc- 
tory for  worship,  and  catechising,  that  we,  and  our  posterity 
after  us,  may,  as  brethren,  live  in  faith  and  love,  and  the  Lord 
may  delight  to  dwell  in  the  midst  of  us." 

It  is  clear  that  the  Westminster  Assembly  was  more 
concerned  with  the  practical  matters  of  church  govern- 
ment and  worship  than  with  matters  of  doctrine.  It  is 
interesting  to  note  that  the  Westminster  Assembly  be- 
gan their  work  by  an  attempt  to  revise  the  XXXIX  Ar- 
ticles of  the  Church  of  England.  They  began  July  8, 
1643,  and  advanced  as  far  as  Article  XVI.,  when  on 
October  I2th,  Parliament  required  them  "to  take  in 
hand  the  discipline  and  liturgy  of  the  Church."  This 
partial  revision  of  the  XXXIX  Articles  is  important  in 
the  history  of  doctrine,  but  has  never  been  adopted  by 
any  of  the  Presbyterian  Churches.  The  most  of  the 
work  on  it  was  done  before  the  Scottish  commissioners 
entered  the  Assembly.  If  Scotland  was  to  unite  with 
England  in  one  Confession,  something  more  than  a  re- 
vision of  these  English  Articles  was  required. 

The  Westminster  Assembly  began  its  work  on  the 
discipline  of  the  Church,  October  17,  1643,  and  con- 
tinued to  debate  matters  of  church  government  and  dis- 
cipline until  July  4,  1645,  when  the  draft  of  government 
was  completed  and  sent  up  to  Parliament  for  approval. 
The  work  upon  the  liturgy  of  the  Church  began  May 
24,  1644,  and  continued  until  December  27th.  The 
Westminster  Assembly  then  undertook  the  composition 
of  the  doctrinal  standards,  but  the  work  was  frequently 


WHITHER?  25 

interrupted  by  questions  sent  down  from  Parliament  on 
the  practical  matters  requiring  immediate  consideration. 
The  work  on  the  Confession  began  in  the  Assembly 
after  preliminary  work  in  special  committees,  July 
7,  1645,  and  the  debate  continued  until  December  4th, 
when  it  was  sent  up  to  Parliament.  The  preparation  of 
the  proof-texts  for  the  Confession  took  from  January  6, 
1647,  until  April  26th.  The  preparation  of  a  Catechism 
had  been  given  in  charge  to  a  committee  of  which  Her- 
bert Calmer  was  chairman.  They  began  with  a  prelim- 
inary report  May  13,  1645,  but  the  Catechism  did  not 
come  before  the  Assembly  until  September  14,  1646. 
The  debate  on  the  questions  reported  went  on  until 
January  4,  1647.  There  was  a  considerable  difference  of 
opinion  as  to  the  form  and  the  extent  of  the  Catechism. 
This  difference  was  removed  by  the  decision,  January 
I4th,  to  prepare  two  Catechisms,  a  Larger  and  a  Smaller. 
Accordingly  the  debate  on  the  Larger  Catechism  began 
April  15,  1647,  and  continued  until  October  I5th,  when 
it  was  sent  up  to  Parliament.  Mr.  Palmer  was  chiefly 
responsible  for  the  doctrinal  parts,  as  indeed  the  Larger 
Catechism  was  chiefly  based  on  his  Catechism  ;  but  JVIr. 
jTuckney  was  the  leader  in  the  parts  dealing^  with  the 
Ten  Commandments.  The  commissioners  of  the  Church 
of  Scotland  took  part  in  the  preparation  of  all  these 
documents,  but  left  the  Assembly  soon  afterward,  Octo- 
ber 19,  1647.  Mr.  Tuckney  was  made  chairman  of  the 
committee  on  the  Shorter  Catechism.  The  debate  be- 
gan in  the  Assembly  October  2ist  and  continued  until 
November  25th,  when  it  was  sent  up  to  Parliament 
The  Scottish  commissioners  were  not  present  and  were 
not  responsible  for  the  composition  of  the  Shorter  Cate- 
chism. Parliament  required  the  Assembly  to  prepare 
Scripture  proofs  for  both  Catechisms.  This  they  began 


26  CHANGES. 

to  do  November  3<Dth,  but  did  not  complete  their  work 
until  April  12,  1648.  , 

This  sketch  of  the  work  of  the  Westminster  Assembly 
discloses  several  important  facts  that  are  commonly  over- 
looked in  our  times. 

1.  As  the  Assembly  was  called  by  Parliament  chiefly 
to  determine  the  liturgy,  discipline,  and  government  of 
the  Church,  so  they  gave  their  attention  to  these  mat- 
ters above  all  others.     This  is  clear,  not  only  from  the 
time  consumed  in  the  composition  of  the  documents  re- 
lating to  discipline  and  worship,  but  also  from  the  fact 
that  these  matters  take  up  such  an  unusual  amount  of 
space  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  itself. 

2.  There  were  several  stages  in  the  composition  of  the 
doctrinal  standards  which  are  worthy  of  attention.  Three 
months  were  spent  in  the  revision  of  sixteen  of  the 
XXXIX  Articles  of  the  Church  of   England.     These 
articles  were  carefully  and  thoroughly  considered.     The 
revision  is  valuable  as  showing  the  improvements  of  the 
Westminster  divines  in  the  statement  of  these  doctrines. 
More  than  twenty  months  passed  before  the  Assembly 
again  took  up  doctrinal  matters.     In  the  meanwhile  the 
Episcopal   party   had   withdrawn   from   the  Assembly, 
which  thus  became  more  compact  and  more  strongly 
Presbyterian.     It  was  determined  to  make  a  new  Con- 
fession  of  Faith,  and  to  abandon  the  revision  of  the  old 
Articles.     The  composition  of  the  Confession  consumed 
five  months.    Dr.  Temple  and  Mr.  Reynolds  seem  tn  have 
been  the  leaders  in  this  work.     The  composition  of  the 
Larger  Catechism  was  a  much  more  serious  undertaking. 
Herbert  Palmer  was  the  leader  in  it.     It  took  more  than 
a  year's  work  in  the  committee  before  it  came  before  the 
Assembly.     It  was  debated  in  the  Assembly  itself  for 
thirteen  months  before  adoption.   It  is,  indeed,  the  most 


WHITHER  ?  27 

carefully  prepared  of  all  the  Westminster  symbols.  Its 
doctrinal  statements  are  more  guarded  and  more  elabo- 
rate than  those  of  the  Confession  of  Faith.  This  is  clear, 
especially  in  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  the  Person 
and  the  Work  of  Christ,  Sin,  Effectual  Calling,  and  the 
Sacraments.  The  reasons  for  these  dogmatic  elabora- 
tions in  the  Larger  Catechism  are  to  be  found  in  the  dis- 
cussions that  had  broken  out  in  conflict  with  heresies, 
and  were  making  headway  among  the  English  people. 
The  Larger  Catechism  may  thus  be  considered  the  ma- 
turest  expression  of  Westminster  theology.  The  Shorter 
Catechism  was  prepared  chiefly  by  Tuclcney  and  Wallis 
in  the  brief  space  of  five  weeks,  on  the  basis  of  the 
Larger  Catechism  by  way  of  condensation  and  abridg- 
ment, after  the  Scottish  commissioners  had  left  the 
Assembly,  and  after  many  of  the  ablest  divines  had  died 
or  departed  to  their  homes  in  different  parts  of  England. 

CHANGE   OF  ATTITUDE   TO   THE   STANDARDS. 

When  we  study  the  history  of  Presbyterianism  in 
America  it  is  evident  that  the  attitude  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  to  the  Westminster  Standards  has  entirely 
changed. 

i.  The  questions  of  government  and  worship,  which 
were  the  most  important  things  to  the  Westminster 
divines,  have  so  declined  in  importance  that  the  Ameri- 
can Presbyterian  Church  has  substituted  new  forms  of 
government  and  discipline  for  the  documents  so  carefully 
prepared  by  the  Westminster  Assembly.  And  the  doc- 
trinal standards  which  were  then  regarded  as  of  less  im- 
portance have  risen  to  such  supremacy  that  the  only 
changes  in  them  have  been  in  questions  that  relate  more 
or  less  to  church  government.  The  American  Presby- 
terian Church  has  been  radical  and  revolutionary  in  all 


28  CHANGES. 

questions  of  government  and  liturgy ;  but  in  matters  of 
doctrine  has  been  more  conservative  than  the  West- 
minster divines  themselves. 

2.  The  doctrinal  standard  that  received  the  most  at- 
tention in  the  Westminster  Assembly,  the  Larger  Cate- 
chism, has  fallen  into  neglect.     It  is  little  used,  and  in- 
deed little  known  among  ministers  and  teachers.     On 
the  othe"r  hand,  the  Shorter  Catechism  has  become  the 
favorite  doctrinal  standard  :  and  yet  it  is  brief  and  often 
unguarded  in  its  definitions.     It  tends  to  a  sterner  Cal- 
vinism than  the  Larger  Catechism  on  account  of  this 
brevity  and  conciseness,  and  in  many  cases  cannot  be 
understood  until  it  is  put  in  the  light  of  the  Larger 
Catechism. 

3.  The  Westminster  Standards  were  not  composed 
with  a  view  to  subscription  by  ministers  or  elders,  but 
for   a   public   testimony   of  the   faith   of  the   Church. 
Anthony  Tuckney  tells  us : 

"  In  the  Assemblie,  I  gave  my  vote  with  others  that  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  put  outt  by  Authority,  should  not  bee  eyther  re- 
quired to  bee  sworn  or  subscribed  too ;  wee  having  bin  burnt  in 
the  hand  in  that  kind  before,  but  so  as  not  to  be  publickly 
preached  or  written  against."  * 

Subscription  to  the  Westminster  Standards  was  im- 
posed upon  the  Scotch  Church  by  the  Scottish  Parlia- 
ment, in  the  interest  of  breadth  and  liberty,  to  give  all 
subscribers  a  right  in  the  Church  and  to  prevent  that  in- 
tolerance against  the  Episcopal  clergy  that  burst  out  in 
Scotland  at  the  Revolution  and  would  drive  them  all 
from  the  Church.  The  Episcopal  clergy  who  subscribed 
could  not  be  excluded  from  the  Church.  It  is  thus  one 
of  the  remarkable  changes  of  history  that  a  subscription 

*  "  Eight  Letters  of  Dr.  Antony  Tuckney  and  Benjamin  Whichcote,"  London, 
1753.  P.  A 


WHITHER?  29 

that  was  ordered  in  the  interest  of^  toleration  should  be- 
come in  after  years  the  instrument  of  intolerance.  Sub- 
scription  was  not  required  in  Ireland  until  1698,  and  was 
never  used  by  English  Presbyterians. 

The  subscription  controversy  that  sprang  up  in  the 
eighteenth  century  divided  Presbyterianism  in  Ireland 
and  America.  The  ablest  and  noblest  divines  resisted 
subscription  as  long  as  possible.  It  seemed  to  be  neces- 
sary in  order  to  keep  out  errors  respecting  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity.* 

The  founders  of  the  American  Presbyterian  Church 
did  not  subscribe  to  the  Westminster  Standards.  The 
original  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  knew  nothing  of 
subscription.  The  Synod  of  Philadelphia  introduced  it 
in  1729  when  it  passed  the  Adopting  Act  in  which  the 
ministers 

"declare  their  agreement  in,  and  approbation  of,  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,  with  the  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms  of  the 
Assembly  of  Divines  at  Westminster,  as  being  in  all  the  essential 
and  necessary  articles,  good  forms  of  sound  words  and  systems 
of  Christian  doctrine,  and  do  also  adopt  the  said  Confession  and 
Catechisms  as  the  confession  of  our  faith."  t 

r> 

This  Adopting  Act  was  framed  by  Jonathan  Dickin- 
son,  the  greatest  divine  the  American  PresbyJ:erian 
Church  has  produced.  He  made  our  subscription  gen- 
erous and  tolerant.  We  do  not  subscribe  to  every  arti- 
cle, but  only  to  "  the  essential  and  necessary  articles  "; 
that  is,  those  essential  to  the  Westminster  system,  as  a 
system  of  doctrine. 

The  adoption  of  the  ecclesiastical  standards  was  still 
more  liberal.  |f 


*  See  Briggs'  "  American  Presbyterianism,"  pp.  194  seq. 
t  /.  c.,  pp.  218  seq. 


30  CHANGES. 

"  The  Synod  do  unanimously  acknowledge  and  declare,  that 
they  judge  tne  Directory  for  Worship,  Discipline,  and  Govern- 
ment of  the  Church  commonly  annexed  to  the  Westminster 
Confession^  to  be  agreeable  in  substance  to  the  Word  of  God, 
and  founded  thereupon,  and  therefore  do  earnestly  recommend 
the  same  to  all  their  members,  to  be  by  them  observed  as  near 
as  circumstances  will  allow,  and  Christian  prudence  direct." 

It  is  clear  here  that  the  American  Synod  abandoned 
the  jure  divino  Presbyterianism  of  the  Westminster 
Standards  and  adopted  a  substantial,  prudential  Presby- 
terianism in  its  stead.* 

Thus  far,  the  American  Presbyterian  Church  made  no 
revision  of  any  of  the  Westminster  Standards,  but  only 
gave  a  definition  of  the  measure  of  their  adoption  by  the 
American  Church.  The  doctrinal  standards  were  adopted 
in  all  essential  and  necessary  articles,  the  ecclesiastical 
standards,  in  substance,  and  as  near  as  circumstances 
will  allow  and  Christian  prudence  direct.  This  Adopting 
Act  opened  a  broad  and  generous  path  by  its  terms  of 
subscription. 

REVISION  OF  THE  STANDARDS. 

The  American  Presbyterian  Synod  in  1788  made  a 
thorough  revision  of  the  Standards  preparatory  to  con- 
stituting the  General  Assembly.  They  adopted  the  Con- 
stitution consisting  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  the  Larger 
and  Shorter  Catechisms,  the  Directory  for  Worship,  and 
the  Form  of  Government  and  Discipline.  Their  revision 
of  the  Westminster  Standards  was  so  thorough-going 
that  it  was  revolutionary. 

I.  They  made  a  new  Form  of  Government  and  Disci- 
pline which  they  substituted  for  thq  Westminster  Form 
of  Government.  This  was  revised  again  in  1805  in  sev- 


*  See  Briggs'  ''  American  Presbyterianism,"  pp.  220  sey. 


WHITHER?  31 

eral  chapters,  and  it  has  been  revised  several  times  in 
more  recent  years.  The  Southern  Presbyterian  Church, 
a  few  years  ago,  adopted  a  new  "  Book  of  Church 
Order,"  and  the  Northern  Presbyterian  Church,  in 
1884-85,  made  a  new  Book  of  Discipline.  These  revis- 
ions have  been  so  radical  as  to  change  the  doctrine  of 
the  officers  of  the  Church  and  the  structure  of  all 
ecclesiastical  bodies  from  the  Presbytery  to  the  General 
Assembly. 

2.  The   Synod   of    1788   made  a  new  Directory  for 
Worship,  casting  the  venerable  Westminster  Directory 
aside,  not  merely  in  its  forms  and  language,  but  also  in 
some  of  its  most  important  principles  and  rules  of  wor- 
ship.    This  Directory  was  revised  again  in  1821  ;  and 
again  in  1886,  by  the  insertion  of  a  new  chapter,  "  Of  the 
Worship  of  God  by  Offerings." 

3.  The  Confession  of  Faith  was  revised  in  1788  in  the 
three  chapters:  xx.  4;  xxiii.  3  ;  xxxi.  I,  and  a  new  doc- 
trine of  the  relation  of  Church  and  State  was  substi- 
tuted for  the  Westminster  doctrine.    In  1887  the  North- 
ern Presbyterian  Church  revised  chapter  xxiv.  4,  in  order 
to  get  rid  of  the  prohibition  of  marriage  with  a  deceased 
wife's  'sister.     The  Southern  Presbyterian  Church  made 
the  same  revision.     Thus  the  Confession  of  Faith  has 
been  revised  in  four  different  chapters  by  the  American 
Presbyterian  Church. 

4.  The    Larger   Catechism    was   revised   in    1788    by 
striking  out  from  Question  109  "  tolerating  a  false  re- 
ligion."    The  Shorter  Catechism,  the  least  important  of 
the_Westminster   symbols,    is   the   only  one   that   has 
escaped  revision. 

5.  It  is  also  noteworthy  that  the  Synod  of  1788  re- 
moved the  whole  body  of  proof-texts  from  the  Stand- 
ards and  published  the  Constitution  without  any  proof- 


32  CHANGES. 

texts.  We  have  seen  that  the  Westminster  Assembly 
not  only  had  strong  committees  at  work  upon  them,  but 
also  debated  them  in  open  Assembly.  The  proof-texts 
for  the  Confession  consumed  three  months,  and  those  in 
the  Catechisms  more  than  four  months.  The  General 
Assembly  in  1792  appointed  a  committee  to  prepare 
proof-texts  for  the  Standards.  This  committee  made  a 
report  of  a  specimen  in  1794.  They  were  directed  to 
compare  their  work  "with  the  proofs  annexed  to  the 
Westminster  Confession,  Catechisms  and  Director)';  to 
revise  the  whole,  prepare  it  for  the  press,  to  agree  with 
the  printer  for  its  publication,  and  to  superintend  the 
printing  and  sending  of  the  same." 

This  careless  way  of  adopting  proof-texts,  by  giving 
a  committee  full  power,  is  very  striking  when  compared 
with  the  great  pains  taken  in  this  regard  by  the  West- 
minster Assembly.  It  is  true  these  proof-texts  are  no 
part  of  the  Constitution  of  the  American  Presbyterian 
Church ;  but  they  are  printed  by  the  authority  of  the 
General  Assembly  with  the  Constitution,  and  so  the 
public  are  deceived  as  to  their  authority. 

It  is  clear  from  this  history  that  the  American  Presby- 
terian Church  has  been  radical  in  its  revisions  of  the 
Westminster  Standards.  The  177  ministers  who  consti- 
tuted the  Synod  that  adopted  the  Constitution,  after 
such  revolutionary  proceedings,  were  not  noted  for  their 
wisdom  or  ability.  They  were  pious,  excellent,  practical 
men,  but  there  was  not  one  really  eminent  divine  among 
them.  There  was  not  one  who  could  rank  as  a  first-rate 
authority  in  Biblical,  historical,  dogmatic,  or  even  prac- 
tical theology.  They  entirely  set  aside  more  than  half 
of  the  work  of  the  Westminster  divines.  There  is  no 
reason  to  doubt  that  they  would  have  made  a  new  Con- 


WHITHER  ?  33 

fession  of  Faith  and  new  Catechisms  if  they  had  deemed 
it  wise  so  to  do. 

It  is  a  strange  idea  that  has  sprung  up  in  recent  times 
with  the  growth  of  American  scholastic  dogmatics,  that 
the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms  are  more  sacred 
than  the  Directory  for  Worship  and  the  Form  of  Gov- 
ernment. This  conceit  would  have  seemed  very  remark- 
able to  the  old  Puritans  and  the  Westminster  divines, 
who  made  a  life  and  death  struggle  for  a  church  gov- 
ernment and  a  mode  of  worship  that  were  founded,  as 
they  supposed,  on  the  divine  right  of  the  sacred  Scrip- 
tures. They  sustained  all  these  documents  alike  by 
proof-texts  from  the  Word  of  God.  But  some  of  their 
children,  who  have  forsaken  them  in  this  as  well  as  in 
other  things,  now  wish  to  exalt  their  work  in  the  doc- 
trinal department  above  the  possibility  of  revision.  It 
is  very  remarkable  that  the  Westminster  divines  should 
be  so  fallible  in  church  government  and  worship  and  at 
the  same  time  so  infallible  in  their  dogmatic  theology. 
A  deeper  study  of  the  divine  Word  has  corrected  their 
opinions  in  the  former,  as  all  admit ;  has  it  left  their 
views  on  the  latter  entirely  unchanged?  No  one  would 
have  repudiated  such  inconsistency  more  than  the  West- 
minster divines  themselves. 

THE   MINISTRY. 

The  American  Presbyterian  Church  has  made  very 
important  changes  in  the  doctrine  of  the  ministry  of  the 
Church.  This  is  evident  when  we  see  side  by  side  the 
statements  of  the  Westminster  Form  of  Church  Govern- 
ment, the  Form  of  Government  of  the  American  Synod 
of  1788,  and  the  Book  of  Church  Order  of  the  Southern 
Presbyterian  Church : 


34: 


CHANGES. 


WESTMINSTER. 

NORTHERN   CHURCH. 

SOUTHERN   CHURCH. 

"  The          officers 

"  I.    Our    blessed 

"  The  ordinary  and 

which    Christ    hath 

Lord  at  first  collect- 

perpetual  offices   in 

appointed     for    the 

ed   his   Church    out 

the      Church      are, 

edification     of     His 

of  different  nations, 

teaching   Elders,  or 

Church  and  the  per- 

and  formed   it   into 

ministers      of      the 

fecting  of  the  Saints 

one  body,  by  the  mis- 

Word, who  are  com- 

are some  extraordi- 

sion of   men  endu- 

missioned to  preach 

nary,     as     apostles, 

ed   with   miraculous 

the  Gospel  and  ad- 

evangelists,         and 

gifts,     which     have 

minister  the    sacra- 

prophets, which  are 

long  since  ceased. 

ments   and   also   to 

ceased.    Others,  or- 

" II.  The  ordinary  •  rule  ;  Ruling  Elders, 

dinary   and    perpet- 

and   perpetual    offi-  whose  office  it  is  to 

ual,  as  pastors,  teach- 

cers in  the  Church 

wait  on  government  ; 

ers,  and  other  church 

are  Bishops  or  Pas-  and  Deacons,  whose 

governors  and  dea- 

tors ;  the  represent-  function   is  the  dis- 

cons." 

atives  of  the  people, 

tribution  of  the  of- 

usually  styled    Rul-  ferings  of  the  faith- 

ing  Elders  ;  and  Dea- 

ful for  pious  uses." 

cons." 

The  Southern  book  also  divides  the  ministers  of  the 
Word  into  four  classes — (i),  the  pastor;  (2),  the  teacher; 
(3),  the  evangelist ;  and  (4),  the  minister  called  to  labor 
through  the  press  or  in  any  other  like  needful  work. 

There  are  several  important  changes  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  ministry  here. 

(i).  The  Westminster  divines  distinguish  between  the 
extraordinary  offices  of  the  church,  "  apostles,  evangel- 
ists, and  prophets,  which  are  ceased,"  and  the  ordinary 
and  perpetual  officers,  "  pastors,  teachers,  and  other 
church  governors  and  deacons."  The  American  Form 
of  Government  neglects  to  specify  these  extraordinary 
offices  that  are  ceased.  This  was  done  in  order  to  re- 
move the  evangelists  from  this  class.  That  this  is  the 


WHITHER?  35 

case  is  clear  from  the  insertion  of  a  section  in  the  Form 
of  Government  providing  for  the  ordaining  of  the  evan- 
gelists, which  was  an  innovation  in  the  Presbyterian 
doctrine  of  the  ministry.  The  Southern  Church  went 
still  further  and  made  the  evangelist  co-ordinate  with, 
the  pastor,  teacher,  and  editor,  as  four  different  kinds  pf 
teaching  elders.  The  American  Church  in  its  history 
has  made  an  increasing  use  of  so-called  evangelists. 
Until  recent  years  these  have  been  ordained  ministers 
in  accordance  with  the  doctrine  set  forth  in  the  Amer- 
ican Form  of  Government.  But  in  recent  years  a  consid-/^*  < 
erable  number  of  unordained  evangelists  have  sprung./  <<  l*- 
up,  and  men  who  lay  no  claim  to  the  office  of  the  min- 
istry,  and  have  not  been  recognized  as  ministers  in  any 
sense,  have  been  preaching  the  Gospel  in  Presbyterian 
cKurches.  There  is  no  provision  for  these  men  in  the 
order  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  I  shall  not  attempt 
to  discuss  the  question  whether  these  evangelists,  or- 
dained or  unordained,  ministers  or  laymen,  are  legit- 
imate officers  in  the  church,  and  are  normal  develop- 
ments of  Christian  work.  It  is  my  purpose  simply  to 
call  attention  to  the  fact  that  lay-evangelists  have  no 
place  in  the  Presbyterian  Form  of  Government  or  Direc- 
tory of  Worship,  and  to  use  them  is  illegal  and  disor- 
derly in  the  Presbyterian  Church  at  the  present  time. 
It  is  also  evident  that  the  Westminster  divines  would 
not  recognize  our  so-called  ministerial  evangelists  as  the 
evangelists  of  the  New  Testament.  The  Westminster 
divines  were  building  their  doctrine  of  church  govern- 
ment on  the  divine  right  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
they  endeavored  to  prove  every  item  of  their  church 
government  by  one  or  more  passages  of  Scripture.  They 
could  not  find  the  evangelist  among  the  permanent  offi- 
cers of  the  Church  in  the  New  Testament.  All  New 


36  CHANGES. 

Testament  scholars  will  agree  with  them.  The  evangel- 
ist in  the  modern  Presbyterian  Church  is  not  jure  divino, 
but  jure  humano,  and  is  an  evidence  of  the  departure  of 
modern  Presbyterianism  from  the  jure  divino  theory  of 
church  government. 
^  (2).  The  Southern  Presbyterian  Church  recognizes  the 

? » t «  Tt^ditor  as  one  of  the  four  kinds  of  teaching  elders.     This 
i      official  recognition  of  the  religious  editor  is  another  de- 

»  parture  from  the  jure  divino  Presbyterianism.     It  is  true 

that  the  editors  have  long  been  unofficially  recognized 
as  ministers  in  the  American  Presbyterian  Church ;  but 
so  have  teachers  in  colleges  and  academies,  insurance 
agents  and  bankers,  who  for  various  reasons  have  with- 
drawn from  the  active  work  of  the  ministry  and  have 
entered  into  those  various  callings  in  life  that  are  usually 
carried  on  by  men  who  have  not  been  ordained  as  minis- 
ters. In  the  Presbyterian  Churches  of  Europe,  the  ed- 
itor, the  school-teacher,  the  college  professor,  and  all  oth- 
ers who  are  not  engaged  as  pastors  and  theological  teach- 
ers  areregarded  as  no  longer  ministers.  The  American 
Presbyterian  Church  has  drifted  into  its  present  unfortu- 
nate position  of  recognizing  all  men  as  ministers  who 
have  been  ordained  until  they  have  been  released  from  the 
ministry  by  act  of  the  presbytery.  Whatever  opinion 
any  one  may  hold  as  to  the  propriety  of  an  editorial 
ministry,  it  is  certain  that  no  one  can  present  evidences 
for  such  a  ministry  from  the  New  Testament. 

(3).  The  American  Synod  of  1788  substituted  the 
term  "  ruling  elders  "  for  the  Westminster  term  "  other 
church  governors,"  and  thus  took  a  more  decided  posi- 
tion on  the  difficult  question  of  the  elders  of  the  Bible 
than  the  Westminster  divines  were  able  to  take,  as  they 
were  compelled  to  present  to  Parliament  evidences  from 
the  Scripture  for  every  statement  they  made.  The 


WHITHER?  37 

American  Synod  also  made  the  elders  "representatives^/  4  tt^ 
of  the  people,"  introducing  the  American  republican  /--./> 
idea  of  the  eldership  in  place  of  the  Westminster  the- 
ory,  which  represents  them  equally  with  the  pastors  as  tJfW«-^< 
"  appointed  by  Christ."  It  is  significant  that  the  Ameri- 
can Synod  left  out  the  phrase  "  appointed  by  Christ " 
when  they  inserted  the  phrase  "  representatives  of  the 
people."  The  Westminster  divines  presented  to  Parlia- 
ment a  jure  divino  system  of  church  governors,  but  cer- 
tainly the  American  representative  elders  cannot  be  found 
either  in  the  New  Testament  or  the  Old  Testament. 
The  elders  of  the  American  Church  are  not  the  "  other 
church  governors  "  of  the  Westminster  divines ;  still  less 
do  they  correspond  with  the  presbyters  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment appointed  by  Christ  and  His  apostles  to  rule  in  His 
Church.  The  American  Presbyterian  elders  are  so  differ- 
ent from  the  Biblical  and  the  Westminster  elders  that 
they  have  no  claim  to  be  jure  divino,  but  only  jure  humano. 
(4).  The  Westminster  divines  divided  their  ministry  of 
the  Word  into  two  classes,  pastors  and  teachers.  The 
American  Synod  of  1788  reduced  the  two  classes  to  one, 
using  the  term  bishops  or  pastors.  The  Southern  Church 
sums  up  four  classes  in  the  one  term,  "  teaching  elders." 
The  Westminster  divines  were  cautious  in  their  state-  /_  . 
ments  and  adhered  closely  to  the  Biblical  proofs.  The/  <A?  H.&J 
American  Synod,  by  their  use  of  bishop  and  pastor  as 
synonymous  terms,  were  more  polemic  in  their  attitude 
to  diocesan  bishops  than  the  Westminster  divines,  who 
were  willing~torecognize  diocesan  bishops  as  supe'nh- 
tending  pastors,  provided  they  were  not  recognized  as 
of  a  different  order  of  ministers  by  divine  right.  The 
Southern  Church  lays  undue  stress  upon  the  term  elder, 
and  by  so  doing,  departs  from  every  precedent  in  the 
history  of  Presbyterianism. 


38  CHANGES. 

(5)-  The  Synod  of  1788  omitted  the  teacher  from  the 
_  /  officers  of  the  church.  This  was  another  innovation  in 
the  Presbyterian  doctrine  of  the  ministry.  It  was  con 
iltT/t  nected  with  the  omission  of  the  section  of  the  Westmin- 
ster Form  of  Government,  giving  the  duties  of  the 
teacher  or  doctor.  The  Southern  Presbyterian  Church 
restored,  the  teacher  to  his  place  among  ministers,  but 
failed  to  assign  him  his  special  duties,  because  it  distrib- 
uted them  among  the  four  classes  of  its  ministry,  all  of 
whom  are  regarded  as  "  teaching  elders."  This  involves 
a  neglect  of  the  specific  functions  of  the  pastor  as  distin- 
guished from  the  teacher. 

The  Westminster  divines  make  the  following  state- 
ment with  reference  to  the  doctor : 

"  The  Scripture  doth  hold  out  the  name  and  title  of  a  teacher, 
as  well  as  of  the  pastor  (i  Cor.  xii.  28  ;  Eph.  iv.  1 1).  Who  is  also 
a  minister  of  the  Word,  as  well  as  the  pastor,  and  hath  power  of 
administration  of  the  sacraments.  The  Lord  having  given  dif- 
ferent gifts,  and  divers  exercises  according  to  these  gifts,  in  the 
ministry  of  the  Word  (Rom.  xii.  6-8  ;  i  Cor.  xii.  I,  4-7).  Though 
these  different  gifts  may  meet  in,  and  accordingly  be  exercised 
by,  one  and  the  same  minister  (i  Cor.  xiv.  3  ;  2  Tim.  iv.  2  ;  Titus 
i.  9).  Yet  where  be  several  ministers  in  the  same  congregation, 
they  may  be  designed  to  several  employments,  according  to  the 
different  gifts  in  whioh  each  of  them  do  most  excel  (i  Peter  iv. 
10,  1 1).  And  he  that  doth  more  excel  in  exposition  of  Scripture, 
in  teaching  sound  doctrine  and  in  convincing  gainsayers,  than 
he  doth  in  application,  and  is  accordingly  employed  therein,  may 
be  called  a  teacher,  or  doctor.  Nevertheless,  where  is  but  one 
minister  in  a  particular  congregation,  he  is  to  perform,  so  far  as 
he  is  able,  the  whole  work  of  the  ministry  (2  Tim.  iv.  2  ;  Titus 
i.  9 ;  i  Tim.  vi.  2).  A  teacher,  or  doctor,  is  of  most  excellent  use 
in  schools  and  universities,  as  of  old  in  the  schools  of  the 
prophets,  and  at  Jerusalem,  where  Gamaliel  and  others  taught 
as  doctors." 

This  Westminster  doctrine  of  the  teacher  or  doctor  is 


WHITHER  ?  39 

the  same  as  that  found  in  Cartwright's  Church  Government 
and  the  Scottish  Books  of  Discipline.  When  the  Amer- 
ican Synod  removed  the  doctor  from  thp  ordinary  min- 
isters of  the  Church,  it  made  a  change  of  immpnsp  im- 
portance,  the  consequences  of  which  have  not  vet  been 
fully  dravvn^  It  changed  the  customs  and  practice  of 
the  Presbyterian  -churches  in  this  regard.  In  New  Eng- 
land in  the  seventeenth  century,  there  was  an  average 
of  two  ordained  ministers  to  a  church.  Thomas  Weld  * 
gives  an  account  of  the  three  kinds  of  elders  that  pre- 
vailed there — pastors,  teachers,  and  ruling  elders.  The 
Presbyterian  churches  of  London,  Edinburgh,  and  Dub- 
lin in  the  eighteenth  century  ordinarily  had  two  minis- 
ters, whenever  they  were  sufficiently  large  to  sustain 
them  ;  and  it  has  been  the  custom  of  the  Reformed 
churches  of  the  Continent,  as  well  as  the  Lutheran,  to 
employ  several  ministers  in  large  city  churches.  The 
Church  of  England  and  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
have  pursued  this  policy  from  the  earliest  times.  The 
American  Synod  departed,  not  only  from  the  practice  of 
the  Presbyterianism  of  the  old  world,  but  also  from  the 
common  customs  of  Christendom.  It  is  probable  that 
there  was  not  a  single  church  belonging  to  the  Synod  in 
1788  that  was  able  to  employ  more  than  one  minister.  It 
was  exceedingly  difficult  to  secure  a  sufficient  number 
of  ministers  to  supply  even  the  larger  and  more  import- 
ant churches  each  with  one  minister.  It  was  doubtless 
out  of  the  experience  of  American  Presbyterianism  that 
they  blotted  out  the  doctor  and  inserted  the  evangelist. 
But  they  made  a  mistake  in  putting  these  radical  changes 
in  the  Constitution  that  they  adopted  for  a  Church  that 
was  to  spread  over  a  continent. 


*  "  Brief  Narration  of  the  Churches  in  New  England,"  1645. 


40  CHANGES. 

Long  since  we  have  had  hundreds  of  Presbyterian 
churches  in  large  cities  and  in  large  country  towns, 
where  two  or  more  ministers  have  been  needed  to  do  the 
work  of  the  churches.  Many  old  churches  have  been 
divided  into  two  or  more  congregations,  each  with  its 
own  minister,  in  accordance  with  the  theory  that  each 
church  should  have  but  one  minister;  and  there  have 
been  friction  and  waste,  where  unity  in  a  large  church 
would  have  secured  greater  efficiency  and  progress.  The 
evil  is  much  greater  in  cities  where  a  great  number  of 
feeble  organizations  is  the  result  of  the  system  of  having 
one  minister  to  a  church,  multiplying  the  number  of 
church  buildings  with  all  the  vast  increase  of  expense 
connected  therewith.  This  is  one  of  the  chief  reasons 
why  churches  decay  and  die  in  the  poorer  sections  of 
the  cities.  It  is  impossible  for  a  few  hundred  peopjie_of 
Asmall  means  to  gather  in  a  church  building  and  sustain 
a~pastor,  with  all  the  incidental  expenses^  We  must 
follow  the  example  of  the  old  world  and  the  experience 
of  centuries,  and  build  great  buildings  that  will  hold 
several  thousand  worshippers,  and  furnish  these  churches 
with  several  ministers,  distributing  the  work  among  them 
in  accordance  with  their  several  gifts. 

Our  American  system  makes  no  provision  for  the 
variety  of  gifts  in  the  Christian  ministry,  but  goes  on 
the  theory  that  all  ministers  have  all  the  gifts  that  are 
requisite.  This  theory  is  against  the  Scriptures,  which 
tell  us  of  a  variety  of  gifts  of  ministry ;  and  it  is  also 
against  the  experience  of  the  Church  in  all  ages,  and  our 
own  every-day  experience.  It  is  a  matter  of  common 
remark  that  in  the  last  generation  we  had  too  much 
preaching  of  doctrine  ;  in  other  words,  too  much  of  the 
teaching-gift  in  the  ministry.  The  ministers  were  trained 
in  the  theological  seminaries  to  teach,  and  they  did 


WHITHER?  41 

teach.  The  work  of  the  pastor  and  the  preacher,  so  far 
as  it  differed  from  the  work  of  the  teacher,  was  more  or 
less  neglected.  The  consequence  was,  that  the  people 
understood  the  Scriptures  and  the  doctrines  of  the 
Church  much  better  than  they  do  at  present,  but  were 
not  so  much  stirred  up  to  Christian  activity.  Instruc- 
tion in  the  Catechism  was  almost  universal.  Lectures 
upon  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  in  exposition  of  the 
Scriptures,  on  Sabbath  morning  and  at  the  weekly 
lecture,  were  heard  gladly  by  the  people. 

But  in  the  present  generation  there  has  been  a  great 
change.  The  Catechism  has  been  largely  banished  from 
the  Sunday-school,  and  catechizing  by  ministers  is  the 
exception  rather  than  the  rule.  The  people  object  to 
doctrinal  preaching,  and  even  expositions  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. The  teacher  retires  into  the  background,  and  the 
preacher,  who  exhorts  and  applies  the  Word,  is  in  de- 
mand, and  is  popular.  Rhetorical  qualifications  are  re- 
quired, and  the  question  is  not  asked  whether  the  min- 
ister has  the  Scriptural  qualification,  "  apt  to  teach,"  but 
whether  he  will  be  popular.  As  a  result,  there  is  a  sur- 
prising  ignorance  among  intelligent  Christians  as  to  the 
history  and  doctrines  of  the  Church,  the  theories  of  gov- 
eTnment  and  ^worship,  and  even  the  Scriptures  them- 
selves.They~know  about  literature  and  science,  but 
mey  know  not  the  Bible  and  f.hrigHan  rWi-rinfv 

The  Church  has  never  been  able  to  get  on  without  the 
doctor,  and  his  place  can  never  be  filled  by  ministers 
with  other  gifts  and  endowments.  The_Church  needs 
all  kinds  of  ministers,  and  it  will  fare  badly  if  it  neglects 
any~one  of  them.  There  is  a  place  for  the  doctor  or 
teacher,  as  well  as  the  eloquent  preacher.  The  strong 
churches  ought  to  have  them  both,  and  must  have  them 
both  if  they  are  to  grow  in  grace  and  knowledge.  There 


42  CHANGES. 

are  very  few  men  who  can  fulfil  both  offices.  The  gifts 
that  make  the  teacher,  very  often  prevent  the  man  from 
being  an  eloquent  preacher.  The  difference  has  to  do 
with  method  of  discourse,  style,  the  choice  of  topics, 
and  the  aim  of  the  speaker.  There  are  very  few  who 
can  turn  from  the  one  to  the  other  with  ease,  and  give 
each  its  proper  proportion  in  his  ministry. 

This  is  an  age  of  consolidation,  centralization,  and 
more  efficient  organization  in  business,  in  politics,  and 
in  education  ;  but  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  lags  be- 
hind, too  conservative  in  its  methods  to  be  efficient.  In 
business,  little  shops  have  largely  given  place  to  large 
stores,  and  where  there  were  a  hundred  firms  a  few  years 
^go  in  one  line  of  business,  there  are  now  ten  ;  and  there 
/are  many  instances  in  which  all  the  business  has  come  to 
a  head  in  the  control  of  one  mind.  But  the  Christian 
Church  goes  on  in  the  policy  of  splitting  up  into  little, 
half-starved,  feeble  detachments.  An  army  in  these 
days  marches  in  great  hosts,  a  vast  organism.  But  the 
army  of  the  Lord  is  broken  up  into  little  companies, 
without  any  efficient  organization  or  guidance. 

We  ought  to  have  in  mind  the  cathedral  establish- 
ments  of  the  Old  World,  and  great  Protestant  organiza- 
tions, such  as  Spurgeon's  tabernacle  in  London,  which 
"are  centres  of  religious  life  to  vast  communities.  The 
problem  of  preaching  the  Gospel  to  the  poor  in  the  great 
cities  will  never  be  solved  except  in  some  such  way. 
Great  preachers  are  few  in  number.  But  some  may  be 
found  who  can  preach  to  several  thousand  people  as 
easily  as  to  several  hundred.  Such  a  man,  sustained  by 
a  band  of  ministers,  some  with  teaching  gifts,  some  with 
pastoral  gifts,  some  with  gifts  of  eloquence  for  exhorta- 
tion, and  some  with  executive  gifts  for  organizing  Chris- 
tian work,  would  do  an  amount  of  good  for  Christ  and 


WHITHER?  43 

His  cause  that  no  man  can  do  under  present  conditions. 
There  is  great  value  in  consolidation  and  in  large  or- 
ganizations in  the  Church,  as  well  as  in  the  State  and  in 
business  life.  In  such  a  Church  the  doctor  would  have 
his  place  and  importance,  and  would  co-operate  with  all 
other  arms  of  the  service  of  the  Lord  in  the  common 
work  of  advancing  the  kingdom  of  God  in  the  world. 

THE   PRESBYTERY. 

A  presbytery  is  a  body  of  presbyters  or  elders,  how- 
ever small  or  great.  All  ecclesiastical  courts,  from  the 
highest  to  the  lowest,  are  presbyteries.  Usage  may 
give  the  term  to  one  body  rather  than  to  another ;  but 
in  fact,  it  belongs  to  them  all,  and  it  is  this  theory 
of  government  that  gives  the  Presbyterian  Church  its 
name. 

The  American  presbytery  was  organized  in  the  spring 
of  1706,  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  by  three  pastors 
and  four  missionaries.  It  was  essentially  a  "  meeting  of 
ministers"  as  Francis  Makemie  describes  it,  "  for  minis- 
terial exercise,"  "  to  consult  the  most  proper  measures 
for  advancing  religion  and  propagating  Christianity."  * 
It  did  not  include  all  the  ministers  of  the  Presbyterian 
faith  and  order ;  but  the  presbytery  grew  as  other  min- 
isters and  congregations  united  with  it.  It  did  not 
claim  any  jurisdiction  except  over  those  who  voluntarily 
joined  it.  There  were  many  ministers  and  churches 
that  remained  independent.  TJie  Presbyterianism  of 
America  was  not  homogeneous.  There  were  English, 
Irish,  Scotch,  Welsh,  French,  German,  Dutch,  and  Swiss 
Presbyterians,  and  it  seems  to  have  been  the  design  of 
Providence  that  these  should  unite  only  by  degrees, 


*  See  Briggs'  "American  Presbyterianism,"  p.  142. 


44  CHANGES. 

after  many  generations  of  experience  in  a  condition  of 
separation.  This  coexistence  of  different  Presbyterian 
bodies  within  the  same  territory  without  organic  union, 
has  been  a  prominent  feature  of  American  Presbyterian- 
ism  from  the  beginning. 

In  1716  the  presbytery  divided  itself  "into  subor- 
dinate meetings  or  presbyteries,"  three  in  number,  and 
invited  the  Puritan  ministers  on  Long  Island  to  unite 
with  them  and  make  a  fourth  presbytery ;  and  so  the 
Synod  of  Philadelphia  was  constituted. 

In  1741  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  was  broken  in 
twain  by  an  unhappy  contest,  and  two  rival  synods  were 
constituted,  the  Synod  of  New  York  and  the  Synod  of 
Philadelphia.  These  united  in  1758  as  the  Synod  of 
New  York  and  Philadelphia.  In  1788  this  synod  divided 
itself  into  four  synods,  and  constituted  a  General  As- 
sembly. The  Constitution  gives  the  accompanying  doc- 
trine of  Presbyterian  government,  which  we  place  along- 
side of  the  similar  doctrine  of  the  Westminster  Form  of 
Church  Government.  (See  next  page.) 

The  comparison  shows  some  very  striking  differences. 
The  Westminster  form  is  not  as  detailed  as  the  Ameri- 
can form — for  these  details  were  given  in  special  eccle- 
siastical legislation  in  the  English  and  Scotch  Churches. 

(i).  The  American  Synod  substituted  the  term  "expe- 
dient "  for  the  Westminster  " lawful"  and  added  to  the 
phrase  "  agreeable  to  the  Scripture,"  "  and  the  practice 
of  the  primitive  Christians."  This  shows  a  virtual 
abandonment  of  the  doctrine  of  Presbyterian  govern- 
ment by  divine  right,  or  law,  and  the  basing  of  the  doc- 
trine on  the  principle  of  expediency,  which  was  enforced 
not  merely  by  an  appeal  to  Scripture,  which  alone  satis- 
fied the  Westminster  divines,  but  by  an  appeal  to  the 
practice  of  the  primitive  Christians.  I  doubt  whether 


WHITHER? 


WESTMINSTER. 


AMERICAN. 


It  is  lawful,  and  agreeable  to 
the  Word  of  God,  that  the 
Church  be  governed  by  several 
sorts  of  assemblies,  which  are 
Congregational,  Classical,  and 
Synodical. 

The  ruling  officers  of  a  partic- 
ular congregation  have  power, 
authoritatively,  to  call  before 
them  any  member  of  the  con- 
gregation, as  they  shall  see  just 
occasion. 

A  Presbytery  consisteth  of 
ministers  of  the  Word,  and  such 
other  publick  officers  as  are 
agreeable  to  and  warranted  by 
the  Word  of  God,  to  be  the 
Church-governors,  to  join  with 
the  ministers  in  the  government 
of  the  Church. 

Synodical  assemblies  may  law- 
fully be  of  several  sorts,  as  pro- 
vincial, national,  and  oecumeni- 
cal. 

It  is  lawful  and  agreeable  to 
the  Word  of  God,  that  there  be 
a  subordination  of  Congrega- 
tional, Classical,  Provincial,  and 
National  Assemblies,  for  the 
government  of  the  Church. 


We  hold  it  to  be  expedient, 
and  agreeable  to  Scripture  and 
the  practice  of  the  primitive 
Christians,  that  the  church  be 
governed  by  congregational, 
presbyterial,  and  synodical  as- 
semblies. 

The  church  session  consists 
of  the  pastor  or  pastors,  and  rul- 
ing elders,  of  a  particular  con- 
gregation. 


A  presbytery  consists  of  all 
the  ministers,  and  one  ruling 
elder  from  each  congregation, 
within  a  certain  district. 


A  synod  is  a  convention  of 
the  bishops  and  elders  within  a 
larger  district,  including  at  least 
three  presbyteries. 

The  General  Assembly  shall 
consist  of  an  equal  delegation  of 
bishops  and  elders  from  each 
presbytery. 


46  CHANGES. 

the  Westminster  divines  would  have  been  so  positive 
here  as  our  American  Synod.  It  would  be  rather  diffi- 
cult to  establish  any  such  elaborate  presbyterial  govern- 
ment among  primitive  Christians  as  synodical  assem- 
blies. 

(2).  We  notice  the  abandonment   by  the  American 
Synod  of  the  term  "classical"  assemblies,  and  the  sub- 
stitution of  the  term  presbyterial.     The  term  presbytery 
is  a  Scotch  term.     The  Churches  of  the  Continent  are 
"Tollowed  6y  the  Reformed  Churches  in  America  in  the 
use  of  the  term  cfossis.     This  was  the  term  used  by  the 
Westminster  divines  when  they  organized  the  Provincial 
Assembly  of  London  with  twelve  classes,  in  1647.     It  is 
true  the  term  presbytery  appears  in  the  Westminster 
Form  given  above,  but  this  was  as  a  variant   of  their 
usual  term  classis,  and  it  was  doubtless  to  please  the 
Scottish  commissioners.    We  think  that  the  term  classis 
is  a  better  one  for  several  reasons :  (a).  It  is  inappropri- 
ate to  take  the  term  presbytery,  which  belongs  properly 
to  all  of  these  bodies  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest, 
and  use  it  for  one  of  them.     It  has  had  the  unfortunate 
effect  that  presbyteries  in  Scotland  and  America  have 
had  an  exaggerated  idea  of  their  own  importance,  as  if 
they  were  the  fountain   of   Presbyterian   government, 
when  really  they  are  simply  an  intermediate  body  with 
the  provincial  synod  between   the   fundamental  body, 
the  congregational  presbytery  (or  session),  and  the  cul- 
minating body,  the  national  synod  (or  General  Assem- 
bly).    In  the  history  of  Presbyterianism,  especially  in 
America,  the  presbytery  has  too  often  lordecT  it  over  the_ 
^congregation   in   an   un-presbyterian   manner,  and  has 
even  ventured  to  regard  the  General  Assembly  as  its 
creature,  on  a  theory  of   Presbyterianism   that   corre- 
sponds with  that  of  State's  rights  in  the  nation.    (b\  In 


WHITHER?  4.7 

view  of  a  future  union  with  the  Reformed  bodies,  we 
shall  have  to  resume  the  more  appropriate  name  classis, 
which  is  common  to  the  Presbyterian  and  Reformed 
world.  We  cannot  expect  them  to  take  a  term  which 
is  peculiar  to  Scotch  Presbyterianism. 

(3).  The  classical  presbytery  in  American  Presbyterian- 
ism  is  a  very  peculiar  body  in  the  Presbyterian  world. 
According  to  the  Westminster  model,  it  consists  of 
ministers  of  the  Word  and  other  Church  governors ;  ac- 
cording to  the  American  Synod,  it  was  to  consist  of 
"  ALL  the  ministers  and  one  ruling  elder  from  each  con- 
gregation within  a  certain  district."  There  are  several 
important  changes  here.  The  little  word  "all"  makes 
a  vast  difference.  The  Westminster  divines  knew  of 
only  two  kinds  of  ministers  of  the  Word — namely,  pas- 
tors and  doctors.  These  pastors  were  pastors  of  church- 
es, and  these  doctors  were  either  associated  with  them 
in  the  ministry  of  particular  congregations,  and  so  mem- 
bers of  the  congregational  presbytery,  or  else  were  ap- 
pointed to  teach  in  institutions  of  learning.  The  West- 
minster divines  did  not  recognize  evangelists  as  a  class 
of  ministers.  They  held  that  this  class  disappeared  with 
the  apostles  and  prophets  in  apostolic  times.  There- 
fore the  ministerial  members  of  presbytery  were  all 
members  of  congregational  presbyteries,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  the  theological  professors  in  the  universities. 

The  ministers  of  the  Word  were  no  less  representa- 
tives of  the  parochial  presbyteries  than  the  elders.  The 
American  presbytery,  however,  was  organized  with  only 
three  pastors  and  four  missionaries  without  charge,  and 
was  really  a  meeting  of  ministers,  to  which  the  elders,  as 
representatives  of  the  congregations,  were  appended.  It 
would  seem  that  congregations  did  not  send  elders  un- 
less their  ministers  went  to  presbytery;  for  in  1716  the 


48  CHANGES. 

question  was  raised  whether  an  elder  might  sit  in  the 
absence  of  his  minister,  and  it  was  carried  in  the  affirma- 
tive. This  American  custom  of  regarding  all  ordained 
ministers  as  members  of  presbytery,  whether  attached  to 
congregations  or  not,  has  continued  until  the  present 
time.  It  was  put  in  the  constitution  by  the  little  word 
"#//."  When  now  we  consider  the  immense  number  of 
ministers' who  have  been,  and  still  continue  to  be,  evan- 
gelists in  the  peculiarly  American  sense  of  the  word,  and 
how  large  a  number  of  stated  supplies  and  chapel  mis- 
sionaries we  have  who  are  not  pastors ;  and  then  again 
observe  that  the  doctor  has  no  place  in  the  congrega- 
tional presbyteries ;  we  see  very  clearly  that  an  Ameri- 
can presbytery  is  a  very  different  presbytery  from  a 
Westminster  presbytery,  or  a  presbytery  in  any  of  the 
Presbyterian  churches  of  the  Old  World. 

PRESBYTERIAN  WORSHIP. 

There  have  been  great  changes  in  the  mode  of  worship 
in  Presbyterian  churches  since  the  Westminster  Assem- 
Sly]  The  worship  of  God  in  all  Christian  churches  is 
essentially  the  same,  embracing  the  reading  of  the  Word 
of  God,  prayer,  songs  of  praise,  the  sacraments,  and 
preaching  of  the  Gospel.  The  differences  consist  in  the 
order  of  worship,  the  ceremonies,  the  sacred  times,  and 
those  who  conduct  the  services.  In  the  conflicts  of 
Puritanism  with  Prelacy  in  Great  Britain,  the  Presby- 
terians  were  led  to  emphasize  the  spirituality  of  worship, 
and  to  oppose  the  imposition  of  liturgies,  ceremonies, 
and  a  priesthood.  On  the  other  hand,  the  prelatical 
party  laid  too  much  stress  upon  holy  days,  ceremonies, 
and  liturgies.  In  the  Church  of  England,  the  sacrament 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  was  the  most  essential  thing  in 
public  worship.  In  this  it  agreed  with  the  Lutheran, 


WHITHER  ?  49. 

Roman  Catholic,  and  Greek  Churches.  But  the  Puritans 
made  the  preaching  of  the  Word  of  God  the  most  essen- 
tial thing,  and  so  the  pulpit  took  the  place  of  the  altar 
in  Presbyterian  churches,  and  the  sermon  became  the 
centre  about  which  prayers  and  praise  and  the  reading 
of  the  Scriptures  were  grouped,  to  which  was  appended 
the  observance  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  If  it  has  been  a 
fault  of  the  Episcopal  churches  that  they  have 
fktTsermon,  "it  has  been  a  fault  of  Presbyterian  churches 
thalTthey  have  neglected  the  other  parts  o 


The  tendency  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  has  been  from, 
bad  to  worse  since  the  Westminster  Assembly.  One 
may  trace  this  descent  by  comparing  the  Directory  of 
Worship  in  its  successive  revisions  with  the  worship  of 
Presbyterian  congregations  in  our  day.  The  American 
Presbyterian  churches  are  drifting  toward  an  uncertain 
future".  The  public  worship  in  many  of  our  Presbyterian 
"churches  is  so  different  from  the  Directory,  that  our 
Presbyterian  fathers  could  not  recognize  it  as  Presby- 
terian ;  and  in  many  respects  the  American  Episcopal 
churches  are  more~  conformed  ~to~the  Westminster  ideal 
than  their  jYesbyterian  neighbors. 

It  is  instructive  to  compare  the  order  of  worship  of  the 
Westminster  Directory  with  that  of  the  Directory  for 
the  American  Presbyterian  Church.  (See  next  page.) 

Here  several  changes  attract  attention  : 

(i).  The  collection  is  inserted  immediately  before  the 
benediction.  The  custom  in  the  Presbyterian  churches 
of  Great  Britain  is  to  take  up  the  collection  at  the  door 
of  the  church,  and  thus  it  is  no  part  of  the  order  of  wor- 
ship. The  American  Directory  gives  it  a  place  in  the 
order  of  worship.  But  it  is  only  within  a  few  years  that 
our  churches  have  risen  to  the  conception  that  giving  is 
itself  an  act  of  worship.  Accordingly  the  Church  has 


50 


CHANGES. 


WESTMINSTER. 


AMERICAN. 


(i).  Prayer  of  invocation. 

(2).  Reading  of  Scriptures. 

(3).  Psalm. 

(4).  Prayer,  (a)  confession, 
(b)  petitions, 
(f)  intercession, 
(d)  consecration. 


(5).  Sermon. 

(6).  Prayer,  (a)  thanksgiving, 

(b)  special  petitions. 
(7).  Lord's  Prayer. 
(8).  Psalm. 
(9).  Blessing. 


Prayer  of  invocation. 
Reading  of  Scriptures. 
Psalm  or  hymn. 
Prayer,  (a)  adoration, 

(b)  thanksgiving, 

(c)  confession, 

(d)  petitions, 

(e)  pleading, 
(/)  intercession. 

Sermon. 

Prayer,  special  petitions. 

Psalm. 

Collection. 

Benediction. 


added  to  the  Directory :  "  Of  the  worship  of  God  with 
our  substance  "  (chap.  vi.).  The  offerings  of  the  people 
are  to  be  consecrated  by  prayer.  This  is  the  greatest 
improvement  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  has  yet  made 
in  the  matter  of  worship. 

(2).  The  Westminster  Directory  provided  for  the  sing- 
ing of  two  flsa/ms.  The  American  Church,  after  a  long 
and  severe  contest,  introduced  the  singing  of  hymns  in 
addition  to  the  psalms.  This  is  provided  for  in  our 
Directory,  in  the  permission  to  use  a  hymn  instead  of  a 
psalm  in  the  first  exercise  of  singing.  The  churches  have 
continued  to  improve  in  sacred  music,  so  that  there  are 
few  churches  that  do  not  sing  at  least  three  times  in  the 
course  of  the  service.  Many  of  our  churches  have  ad- 
ditional pieces  of  sacred  song  at  the  beginning  of  the 
service,  and  in  connection  with  the  collection  of  the  offer- 


WHITHER? 


ings.  The  service  of  song  has  been  improved^  still  fur- 
fcher  by  the  use  of  organs  and  other  musical  instruments 
and  trained  singers.  But  with  these  improvements  other 


changes  have  come  of  a  more  doubtful  character.  One 
of  these  is  the  custom  of  beginning  worship  with  a  dox- 
ology,  which  is  contrary  to  the  theory  of  the  order  of 
worship  in  both  Directories.  Another  is  the  neglect  of 
the  psalms,  and  an  almost  exclusive  use  of  hymns  in  our 
churches.  The  older  hymn-books  gave  the  entire  Psalter 
by  itself,  but  the  majority  of  our  modern  hymn-books 
give  only  a  portion  of  the  psalms,  and  these  are  buried 
in  the  midst  of  a  much  greater  number  of  hymns,  and 
they  are  seldom  used.  Many  Presbyterian  churches  use 
the  Psalter  for  responsive  readings.  The^Psalter  ought 
to  be  used  regularly  as  an  essential  part  of  the  service  of 
song.  I  see  no  other  way  of  regaining  lost  ground  than 
"Bylntroducing  the  chanting  of  the  psalms  as  a  regular 
part  of  our  worship.  The  American  Presbyterian  Church 
has  departed  so  far  from  the  Westminster  Directory  and 
its  own  Directory  in  this  matter  of  song,  that  all  uni- 
formity of  worship  has  disappeared.  The  official  hymn- 
book  of  the  Church  has  been  driven  from  the  field  by 
private  collections,  some  of  which  are  much  better. 
Every  congregation  does  what  seems  right  in  its  own 
eyes,  and  the  churches  are  in  all  stages  of  advancement 
and  of  deterioration  in  their  worship.  Our  Presbyterian 
fathers  did  not  apprehend  the  importance  of  this  sub- 
ject, and  the  churches  have  done  well  to  improve  upon 
their  tasteless  notions  of  psalm-singing.  But  we  ought 
to  aim  at  something  that  is  high  and  noble,  and  in 
accordance  with  the  genius  of  Presbyterianism,  and  we 
should  advance  toward  it  as  a  Church.  The  present 
situation  is  abnormal  and  chaotic. 

(3).  The  American  Directory  made  a  change  in  the 


52  CHANGES. 

order  of  topics  of  prayer.  The  Westminster  Directory 
agrees  with  the  practice  of  all  the  Reformed  Churches 
in  beginning  the  long  prayer  with  confession  of  sin  and 
petition  for  pardon.  This  was  followed  by  petition  for 
the  Holy  Spirit  and  for  sanctification.  The  next  topic 
was  intercession,  and  the  prayer  concludes  with  conse- 
cration. Thanksgiving  comes  in  the  prayer  after  ser- 
mon. But  the  American  Directory  removed  the  thanks- 
giving from  the  closing  prayer,  and  put  it  after  adora- 
tion in  the  long  prayer.  This  gave  the  long  prayer,  al- 
ready too  long,  greater  length  bylhe  addition  of  two 
more  topics,  and  made  it  disproportionate  and  burden- 
some in  the  morning  worship.  The  American  Directory 
made  an  improvement  when  it  added  the  topic  pleading 
after  petition,  and  before  intercession ;  but  it  made  two 
blunders  in  omitting  consecration  and  the  Lord's  Prayer. 
The  Westminster  Directory  begins  the  topic  of  consecra- 
tion  in  the  following  admirable  manner : 

"And,  with  confidence  of  his  mercy  to  his  whole  Church, 
and  the  acceptance  of  our  persons  through  the  merits  and  medi- 
ation of  our  High-Priest,  the  Lord  Jesus,  to  profess  that  it  is  the 
desire  of  our  soules  to  have  fellowship  with  God  in  the  reverent 
and  conscionable  use  of  his  holy  Ordinances ;  and  to  that  purpose 
to  pray  earnestly  for  his  grace." 

This  is  a  part  of  prayer  which  is  commonly  neglected 
by  our  ministers. 

The  Westminster  Directory,  in  connection  with  the 
prayer  after  sermon,  says : 

I"  And  because  the  Prayer  which  Christ  taught  his  Disciples  is 
not  only  a  Patern  of  Prayer,  but  itself  a  most  comprehensive 
Prayer,  we  recommend  it  also  to  be  used  in  the  Prayers  of  the 
Church." 

It  is  unfortunate  that  this  was  left  out  of  the  Amer- 
ican Directory,  for  it  has  permitted  the  practice  of  a  few 


WHITHER?  53 

Presbyterian  ministers,  who  refuse  to  use  the  Lord's 
Prayer  in  public  worship  on  the  ground  of  its  liturgical 
character. 

(4).  The  Westminster  Directory  for  prayer  is  much 
fuller  than  the  American  Directory ;  so  full  indeed  that 
it  gives  a  minister  not  only  the  order  of  topics  of  prayer, 
but  the  very  words  that  are  most  appropriate  to  use  in 
the  variety  of  matters  that  come  under  these  topics. 
On  this  account,  it  is  much  more  helpful  than  the  Ameri- 
can Directory  to  the  young  minister.  The  American 
Synod  made  a  mistake  when  they  cut  it  down  so  ma- 
terially. They  left  out  some  of  the  most  important 
matters.  One  omission  seems  to  have  been  connected 
with  a  change  of  doctrine.  The  Westminster  Directory 
directs  the  minister 

"to  pray  for  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel  and  Kingdom  of 
Christ  to  all  nations,  for  the  conversion  of  the  Jews,  the  fullnesse 
of  the  Gentiles,  the  fall  of  Antichrist,  and  the  hastning  of  the 
second  coming  of  our  Lord." 

This  petition  is  in  accordance  with  the  Confession  of 
Faith  and  the  Catechisms,  and  it  is  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant to  be  made  in  public  worship,  and  yet  it  was 
blotted  out  by  the  American  Synod  in  1788.  The  rea- 
sons for  doing  it  were  because,  (a),  they  had  lost  the 
Westminster  conception  of  a  world-wide  church  and 
kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  Westminster  sense  of 
the  duty  of  preaching  the  Gospel  to  all  nations.  It  is 
sometimes  represented  that  the  Westminster  divines 
were  at  fault  in  this  particular.  This  is  a  mistake. 
They  were  the  principal  organizers  of  the  first  mission- 
ary society  in  Great  Britain,  to  aid  John  Eliot  and 
others  in  missions  for  the  American  Indians.*  They 


*  See  Briggs'  "  American  Presbyterianism,"  p.  99. 


54:  CHANGES. 

showed  their  interest  by  this  petition  of  their  Directory. 
The  American  Synod  showed  their  lack  of  interest  by 
removing  it.  (b).  Another  reason  was  that  the  American 
Synod  had  changed  the  Westminster  doctrine  of  the 
Second  Advent.  The  Westminster  divines  believed 
with  the  ancient  Church  and  the  Reformers  that  the 
advent  of  Christ  was  at  hand,  and  that  it  was  their  duty 
to  watch  for  it  and  pray  for  it.  But  it  is  probable  that 
the  American  Synod  had  adopted  the  modern  theory 
that  a  millennium  was  to  precede  the  Advent,  and  there- 
fore there  was  no  interest  in  the  prayer  for  the  conver- 
sion of  the  Jews  and  for  the  Advent  itself.  They  al- 
lowed these  Westminster  doctrines  to  remain  in  the 
Confession  and  Catechisms,  which  they  could  accept  in 
accordance  with  the  generous  American  terms  of  sub- 
scription ;  but  they  were  unwilling  to  leave  these  doc- 
trines in  the  forms  for  public  prayer  to  be  used  on  every 
Sabbath  of  the  year. 

The  Directory  does  not  bind  the  ministers  to  the  use 
of  this  order  of  topics,  but  grants  him  liberty  to  vary 
them ;  and  the  ministers  certainly  make  greater  use  of 
their  liberty  than  they  do  of  the  order.  Liberty  is  not 
license.  It  was  designed  that  the  order  should  be  fol- 
lowed, unless  there  were  occasional  reasons  to  change  it. 
But  we  apprehend  that  the  order  of  topics  in  public 

prayer     Viag    vpry    little     praetira.1 — infliipnre     upon     our 

ministers.  Many  of  them  seem  to  forget  that  the 
prayers  of  the  public  service  are  common  prayer ;  that 
are  t0  jea(j  their  people  in  devotion,  and  that  their 
private  feelings  have  no  place  there.  Many  ministers 
have  the  notion  that  the  prayers  are  to  be  framed  to 
suit  the  sermon,  so  as  to  give  the  theme  for  the  day. 
Accordingly,  the  topics  of  common  prayer  are  omitted, 
and  the  long  prayer  is  really  an  introduction  to  the  ser- 


WHITHER?  55 


mon.  But  the  prayers  of  the  people  are 
and  the  minister  is  simply  their  leader.  None  of  the 
topics  of  prayer  should  be  omitted  without  strong  and 
special  reasons.  A  reform  is  needed  in  Presbyterian 
prayers.  I  doubt  whether  much  can  be  accomplished  in 
this  direction  without  a  partial  and  voluntary  Liturgy. 

(5).  In  Reading  the  Scriptures,  there  have  also  been 
very  important  changes.  The  Westminster  Directory 
gives  the  following  : 

"  How  large  a  portion  shall  be  read  at  once,  is  left  to  the  wis- 
dom of  the  Minister  ;  But  it  is  convenient,  that  ordinarily  one 
Chapter  of  each  Testament  be  read  at  every  meeting  ;  and  some- 
times more,  where  the  Chapter  be  short,  or  the  coherence  of  the 
matter  requireth  it.  It  is  requisite  that  all  the  Canonical  Books 
be  read  over  in  order,  that  the  people  may  be  better  acquainted 
with  the  whole  body  of  the  Scriptures  :  and  ordinarily,  where  the 
Reading  in  either  Testament  endeth  on  one  Lord's  day,  it  is  to 
begin  the  next." 

This  was  reduced  in  the  American  Directory  to  the 
following: 

"  How  large  a  portion  shall  be  read  at  once,  is  left  to  the  dis- 
cretion of  every  minister  :  however,  in  each  service,  he  ought  to 
read,  at  least,  one  chapter;  and  more,  when  the  chapters  are 
short,  or  the  connection  requires  it." 

Here  are  two  changes:  (a),  The  reduction  of  the 
minimum  amount  from  one  chapter  of  each  Testament 
to  one  chapter  of  the  Bible  ;  (b),  the  omission  of  the  pro- 
vision for  reading  the  entire  Bible  before  the  congrega- 
tion. The  latter  provision  is  one  of  great  importance, 
and  yet  it  is  not  given  by  the  Westminster  divines  in  the 
best  form.  Thergjire  considerable  portions  of  the  Scrip- 
tures  that  are  not  suited  for  public  reading.  But  the 
greater  part  of  the  .bible  is  suited  for  public  worship,  and 
it  ought  to  be  read  to  the  congregation.  I  once  heard 
an  Anglican  bishop  in  a  sermon  charge  Presbyterians 


56  CHANGES. 

with  neglecting  the  public  reading  of  the  Scripture.  I 
boiled  with  indignation  at  the  time,  but  subsequent  re- 
flection  convinced  me  that  he  was  correct.  The  Epis- 
copal churches  secure  the  full  reading  of  the  most 
important  parts  of  Scripture  in  the  lessons  for  the  eccle- 
siastical  year.  But  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures  in  Pres- 
Bytenan  cnurches  is  left  to  the  minister,  who  selects  his 
passages  to  suit  his  sermon,  and  the  consequence  is  that 
only  a  small  portion  of  the  Scriptures  ever  comes  before 
the  congregation  in  the  public  reading. 

(6).  The  Westminster  Directory  gives  an  appendix 
"  touching  days  and  places  for  public  worship,"  and  it 
takes  the  position  that  "  Festival  days,  vulgarly  called 
Holy-days,  having  no  warrant  in  the  Word  of  God,  are 

.  not  to  be  continued."  The  American  Synod  happily 
blotted  this  out.  There  is  nothing  in  our  Directory  to 
forbid  the  observance  of  the  holy-days  of  the  Christian 

>*^?ar»  and  our  churches  in  increasing  numbers  are  ob- 
/serving  the  most  important  of  them, 


Good  Friday,  and  faster.  The  Westminster  divines  were 
not  as  wise  in  this  as  they  were  in  most  matters  of  faith 
and  practice.  The  experience  of  the  Christian  world  is 
more  valuable.  The  Presbyterian  Churches  of  America 
should  follow  the  PresbyterianChurches  of  the  conti- 
nent  of  Europe  and  keep  the  Christian  year. 

(7).  The  Westminster  divines  laid  great  stress  upon 
Fasting,  both  in  the  Confession  and  the  Directory.  The 
Directory  gives  full  instruction  for  public  fast  days,  and 
the  Form  of  Government  prescribes  fasting  in  connection 
with  ordination  of  ministers.  The  American  Directory, 
in  chap,  xiv.,  retains  the  rules  for  fasting  in  a  shortened 
form.  Our  Presbyterian  fathers  were  as  zealous  for  fast- 
ing as  their  Anglican  rivals,  but  the  American  Presbyteri- 
ans of  ourjiay_seem  to  have  abandoned  fasting  altogether. 


WHITHER?  57 

The  American  Synod  was  radical  in  the  changes  it  in- 
troduced in  the  Form  of  Government  and  Directory  of 
Worship,  departing  from  the  Westminster  Symbols  and 
the  Presbyterian  Churches  of  Europe  in  many  important 
respects.  This  spirit  of  freedom  and  enterprise  and  fear- 
less progress  in  our  American  Presbyterianism  of  one  hun- 
dred years  ago  is  in  striking  contrast  with  the  tradition- 
alism and  conservatism  of  later  times.  The  American 
Presbyterian  Church  has  leaned  heavily  upon  the  work  of 
the  Synod  of  1788,  and  has  not  carried  on  the  work  that 
they  so  well  began.  The  Synod  of  1788  adapted  the 
Presbyterian  forms  of  government  and  worship,  that  had 
been  brought  from  the  Old  World,  to  the  circumstances 
of  the  New  World.  Their  successors  have  ever  been  reluc- 
tant to  follow  their  example,  and  have  thought  rather 
of  adapting  the  American  people  and  the  circumstances 
of  the  country  to  the  Presbyterian  Constitution.  That 
little  band  of  177  ministers  had  no  idea  of  establishing  a 
Constitution  for  all  time.  They  opened  a  way  for  the  re- 
visions that  they  certainly  expected.  They  did  not  hesi- 
tate to  go  in  the  face  of  the  Westminster  divines  and  the 
experience  of  the  Presbyterianism  of  Europe.  They  had 
no  such  conceit  as  to  suppose  that  a  great  Church  of 
"tEousands  of  ministers  would  regard  their  work  as  final. 
They  did  a  brave  and  noble  act  when  they  tried  to  adapt 
these  Westminster  documents  to  the  circumstances  of  the 
infant  Republic.  Their  adaptations  were  remarkably  far- 
sighted  and  excellent,  but  they  did  not  foresee  all  that  has 
taken  place  in  the  last  hundred  years,  and  they  could  not 
provide  for  the  changed  circumstances.  Their  work  was 
thus  far  defective.  On  the  other  hand,  they  made  mis- 
takes in  some  of  their  changes.  The  older  documents  were 
better  in  not  a  few  cases.  The  changes  were  perhaps  nec- 
essary in  the  infancy  of  the  Republic  and  of  our  Church. 


58 


CHANGES. 


But  now  that  the  nation  and  the  Church  have  become 
older,  the  circumstances  have  become  more  like  those  of 
the  Presbyterian  Churches  of  Europe,  and  the  older  docu- 
ments have  in  some  respects  become  more  suitable  than 
the  revisions. 

The  American  Presbyterian  Church  cannot  afford  to 
remain  in  bondage  to  the  Constitution  of  1788.  It  has  in 
many  respects  outgrown  it.  Those  are  the  true  Ameri- 
can Presbyterians  who  have  the  spirit  of  the  Synod  of 
1788,  rather  than  those  who  insist  upon  adhering  rigidly 
to  the  forms  they  have  given  us.  We  should  not  hesi- 
tate to  follow  their  example  and  revise  the  Constitution 
of  1788,  making  it  more  worthy  of  the  Church  of  our  day 
and  the  circumstances  in  which  we  are  now  placed. 

RELIGION  AND   MORALS. 

A  study  of  the  structure  of  the  Westminster  doctrinal 
symbols  and  an  outline  of  their  contents  reveals  another 
important  change  in  the  attitude  of  modern  Presbyteri- 
anism.  These  standards  are  grouped  about  the  three 
historic  documents — the  Lord's  Prayer,  the  Apostles' 
Creed,  and  the  Ten  Commandments — expressing  relig- 
ion, doctrine,  and  morals,  the  three  great  divisions  of 
systematic  theology.  The  Westminster  symbols  deal 
with  these  topics  as  follows : 


CONFESSION 

LARGER 
CATECHISM. 

SHORTER 
CATECHISM. 

(i)  Doctrine  of  the  Scrip- 
tures   

10  Sects. 

1  1  Quests 

7  Quests. 

(2)  Doctrines  of  Faith  
(3)  Morals  

82     " 
28     " 

85 
61       " 

39      " 
45       " 

(4.)  Relief  ion.. 

C2       " 

•an        " 

16 

Total  

172  Sects. 

1  06  Quests. 

107  Quests. 

WHITHER?  59 

The  Confession  lays  the  greatest  stress  upon  doctrines 
of  faith.  This  is  but  natural  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
Directory  of  Worship  and  Form  of  Government  dealt 
with  the  other  departments.  The  Larger  Catechism  in- 
creases the  amount  of  material  under  the  head  of  mor- 
als, due  to  the  elaborate  exposition  of  the  Ten  Com- 
mands under  the  influence  of  Antony  Tuckney.  In 
the  Shorter  Catechism  morals  becomes  the  most  im- 
portant section.  The  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  is  funda- 
mental in  all  the  documents. 

It  is  clear  from  this  table  that  the  current  theology  is 
not  justified  in  laying  so  much  stress  upon  doctrines  of 
faith,  and  so  little  stress  upon  religion  and  morals.  The 
theology  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  long  ago  aban- 
doned the  proportions  of  the  Westminster  symbols  and 
overrated  the  importance  of  doctrines  in  comparison 
with  religion  and  morals.  The  Westminster  divines 
themselves  are  not  without  blame  here.  The  natural 
order  of  treatment  is  religion,  doctrines  of  faith,  and 
morals. 

As  Henry  B.  Smith  says : 

"(a)  Logically,  religion  is  first:  for  the  facts  must  precede 
the  science  of  them,  (b)  Psychologically,  religion  is  first :  for 
the  consciousness  must  precede  the  reflection  upon  it.  (c)  His- 
torically, religion  is  always  first.  Yet  (d)  a  true  religion  and  a 
true  theology  are,  in  advanced  culture,  inseparable.  True  re- 
ligion cannot  be  preserved  without  a  true  theology;  nor  can 
there  be  a  vital  theology  without  a  vital  religious  experience."  * 

The  first  thing  should  be  the  religious  life  itself  as 
expressed  in  the  "  Lord's  Prayer/*  then  the  Creed  giving 
the  articles  of  Faith,  and  the  whole  should  conclude 
with  the  Ten  Commands  as  a  guide  to  a  holy  life.  The 


*  "  Introduction  to  Christian  Theology,"  p.  55.     N.  Y.:  A.  C.  Armstrong. 


60  CHANGES. 

faulty  order  of  the  Westminster  symbols  was  the  occa- 
sion of  the  neglect  of  religion  and  morals  and  the  undue 
exaltation  of  dogma  in  Presbyterian  circles.  For  it  is  a 
weakness  of  human  nature  to  give  chief  attention  to 
those  things  that  come  first.  There  are  few  minds  that 
will  sustain  their  interest  to  the  end  or  give  proportion- 
ate attention  to  the  whole  of  any  subject. 

It  is  also  noteworthy  that  the  Catechisms  divide  them- 
selves into  two  parts  rather  than  three  in  the  answer  to  the 
question,  "  What  do  the  Scriptures  principally  teach  ?  " 
"A.  The  Scriptures  principally  teach,  what  man  is  to 
believe  concerning  God,  and  what  duty  God  requires  of 
man."  This  answer,  taken  strictly,  embraces  the  whole 
department  of  Christian  worship  and  the  means  of 
grace  under  the  head  of  duty  to  God.  This  is  a  serious 
fault.  Doubtless  it  is  our  duty  to  worship  God  and  use 
the  means  of  grace  for  our  salvation.  But  it  is  also  our 
duty  to  believe  in  God  and  maintain  sound  doctrine. 
Worship  is  something  more  than  duty  to  God :  it  is  an 
unspeakable  privilege,  an  expression  of  love  and  grati- 
tude to  our  God  and  Saviour  prior  in  the  experience  of 
most  Christians  to  any  sense  of  moral  obligation.  It  is 
exceedingly  unfortunate  that  the  worship  of  God  and 
the  use  of  the  sacraments  have  been  directed  in  so  many 
persons  and  churches  by  the  sense  of  duty,  and  that 
Christian  love  has  been  overwhelmed  by  law.  When 
duty  is  discriminated  from  faith,  it  is  also  necessary  to 
distinguish  religion  also.  For  religion  is  prior  in  the 
order  of  experience.  The  religious  life  precedes  doc- 
trines  of  faith  and  the  ethical  precepts  that  govern  it. 
Lutheran  and  Reformed  scholasticism,  and  the  me- 
chanical systems  that  scholasticism  engendered,  crushed 
the  religious  spirit  and  produced  a  dead  orthodoxy.  It 
is  one  of  the  chief  merits  of  Schleiermacher  that  he 


WHITHER? 


61 


began  the  work  of  reconstructing  Christian  theology  by 
unfolding  the  richness  and  fulness  of  vital  religion  as 
prior  to  all  creeds  and  ethical  systems  however  sim- 
ple. 

^Religion  is  a  life  before  it  is  a  faith  and  gains  a  char- 
acter.  Itis  a  life  of  union  with  the  living  God,  of  com- 
"mumon  with  the  living  Messiah,  of  worship  of  the 
adorable  Trinity.  When  this  living  religion  is  absent, 
dry  scholastic  creeds  and  cold  ethical  systems  are  of  lit- 
tle value  for  the  reformation  of  the  individual,  the 
nation,  or  the  world.  It  is  the  life  of  religion  that 
animates  the  creed  with  Christian  experience  and  makes 
Christian  ethics  glow  with  holy  love. 

Doubtless  there  are  Christian  churches  that  lay  too 
little  stress  upon  doctrines  of  faith,  but  the  Presbyterian 
and  Congregational  Churches  have  not  this  defect ;  they 
err  in  the  neglect  of  the  religious  element ;  they  are 
at  present  marked  by  the  prevalent  low  views  of  the 
Church  and  its  sacraments,  and  loose  views  and  prac- 
tices in  public  worship.  These  Churches  have  declined 
from  the  high  views  of  their  own  standards.  They  are 
so  far  behind,  that  progress  in  theology  consists  for  them 
in  first  rising  to  the  height  of  the  Westminster  symbols, 
and  then,  from  these  as  a  basis,  rising  to  something  still 
higher.  It  may  be  that  Episcopalians  and  other  litur- 
gical churches  lay  too  much  stress  upon  the  order  of 
worship,  but  Presbyterians  over-emphasize  the  order  of 
the  divine  decrees  and  the  order  of  salvation.  It  is  im- 
portant for  each  denomination  to  recognize  its  defects 
and  overcome  them.  Presbyterians,  Congregationalists. 
and  Baptists  are  behind  in  the  wholejdepartment  _of  re- 
ligion;  episcopalians  and  Methodistsin  the  department 
oFdoctrlnes  of  Faith  ;  mid"  all  churches  are  sadly  behind 
in  morals.  Let  there  be  an  advance  along  the  whole 


62  CHANGES. 

line,  and  these  mistaken  attitudes  of  the  traditional 
Orthodoxy  will  be  abandoned,  the  barriers  of  Christian 
union  will  be  removed,  sectarianism  and  intolerance  will 
vanish  away,  and  the  Church  of  Christ  will  enjoy  its 
ideal  visible  unity. 


CHAPTER    IV. 
SHIFTING. 

IT  is  a  very  significant  sign  of  the  times  that  Protest- 
ant divines  have  so  generally  undermined  the  principles 
of  the  Reformation.  The  three  great  principles  of  the 
Reformation  were — (i),  The  sole  authority  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures  ;  (2),  Justification  by  faith  alone ;  and  (3),  Sal- 
vation by  the  divine^grar^  a1nn<*  These  three  principles 
have  all  been  changed  by  modern  divines  in  the  inter- 
ests of  other  dogmas.  We  shall  limit  ourselves  in  this 
chapter  to  the  principle  of  the  sole  authority  of  the 
Scriptures. 

THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES. 

The  Westminster  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  is  an 
admirable  doctrine.  It  corresponds  with  the  statements 
of  the  Scriptures  themselves,  as  well  as  with  the  faith 
of  the  Reformation.  The  advance  in  the  science  of 
Biblical  criticism  in  recent  times  has  brought  evangeli- 
cal critics  into  entire  sympathy  with  it.  It  corre- 
sponds with  the  facts  of  the  case  and  the  results  of  a 
scientific  study  of  the  Bible.  They  accept  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith,  and  build  upon  it,  and  use  it  to  destroy 
the  false  doctrines  that  dogmaticians  have  taught  in  its 
place.  These  false  doctrines  are  partly  extra-confes- 
sional, sharpening  the  definitions  of  the  Westminster 
symbols  by  undue  refinements  and  assumed  logical  de- 
ductions, such  as,  (a)  the  addition  of  the  adjective 

(63) 


64  SHIFTING. 

verbal^  to  inspiration,  and  (b)  the  use  of  the  term  in- 
errancy  with  reference  to  the  entire  body  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. They  are  chiefly  contra-confessional,  substituting 
false  doctrines  for  the  real  faith  of  the  Church  in  these 
two  particulars,  (c)  basing  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures 
upon  the  testimony  of  the  ancient  Church,  and  (d)  mak- 
ing the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  depend  upon  their 
supposed  human  authors.  We  shall  briefly  consider  each 
one  of  these  errors. 

VERBAL  INSPIRATION. 

The  late  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge  stated  *  that  "  the  Presby- 
terian Church,  in  unison  with  all  evangelical  Christians, 
teaches  that  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments, having  been  given  by  the  immediate  and  plenary 
inspiration  of  God,  are  both  in  meaning  and  verbal  ex- 
pression the  word  of  God  to  man."  This  statement  is 
correct  except  in  the  phrase  "  and  verbal  expression," 
which  is  entirely  false.  Dr.  Hodge  had  no  authority  to 
define  the  faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  and  of 
evangelical  Christians.  The  faith  of  the  Church  is  con- 
tained in  the  creeds ;  and  no  confession  of  faith  or 
catechism  of  recognized  standing  in  the  Reformed  or 
Lutheran  Church,  teaches  that  the  Scriptures  are  in- 
spired in  their  verbal  expression. 

Dr.  Hodge  and  Dr.  Warfield  also  stated  f  that  "  the 
line  can  never  rationally  be  drawn  between  the  thoughts 
and  words  of  Scripture."  This  is  the  private  opinion  of 
these  gentlemen,  but  it  is  not  the  official  doctrine  of  the 
Church.  Other  scholars,  wiser  and  greater  than  they, 


*  "  Presbyterian  Doctrine  Briefly  Stated,"  p.  8,  Presbyterian  Board  of  Publica- 
tion, Philadelphia. 

\  Presbyterian  Review,  vol.  ii.,  p.  235. 


"WHITHER?  65 

deny  it  and  the  creeds  do  not  affirm  it.  It  is  a  narrow- 
ing and  sharpening  of  the  broader  Westminster  defini- 
tion. These  divines  claim  that  their  view  is  the  only  * 
rational  one.  But  we  affirm  that  it  is  no  more  rational 
than  it  is  confessional  or  Biblical.  Their  reasoning  has 
advanced  to  verbal  inspiration.  They  cannot  halt  in 
their  logic,  but  must  accept  the  consequences.  Verbal 
inspiration  makes  the  original  Hebrew,  Aramaic,  and 
Greek  documents  as  they  came  from  the  hands  of  their 
writers,  the  only  inspired  Word  of  God.  If  the  line 
cannot  be  drawn  between  the  thoughts  and  words  of 
Scripture,  we  cannot  separate  the  inspired  thoughts 
from  the  inspired  words, — we  cannot  transfer  the  in- 
spired thoughts  into  other  words.  No  version,  however 
excellent,  canv contain  the  inspired  Word  of  God.  Prot- 
estants claim  that  no  version  can  be  so  inspired  as  the 
originals,  because  it  is  impossible  to  perfectly  translate  the 
inspired  thought  from  one  set  of  words  into  another  set 
of  words,  and  therefore  in  all  disputes  we  must  go  to  the 
original  texts.  But  all  true  Protestants  believe  that  the 
inspired  thought  may  be  transferred  into  the  translations 
of  the  Scriptures,  which  alone  the  people  and  the  ma- 
jority of  their  teachers  are  able  to  use.  A  faithful  transla- 
tion does  transfer  the  inspired  thought,  and  those  trans- 
lations are  most  faithful  that  transfer  the  thought  into 
new  words  rather  than  those  that  aim  at  verbal  corre- 
spondence. The  theory  of  verbal  inspiration  cannot 
admit  inspired  thoughts  in  other  than  inspired  wQfcc^. 
It  therefore  results  in  the  denial  that  there  are  inspired 
thoughts  in  the  English  Bible.  It  cuts  off  the  Christian 
people  from  the  real  word  of  God  and  gives  them  a 
human  substitute.  It  cuts  off  the  most,  of  the  advocates 
of  this  theory  themselves,  for  it  is  one  of  their  charac- 
teristics that  they  prefer  the  a  priori  work  of  dogmatic 


t 


GO  SHIFTING. 

theology  to  the  more  difficult  and  detailed  work  of 
Greek  and  Hebrew  exegesis.  Who  would  trust  the 
1  majority  of  the  dogmatic  divines  of  the  eighteenth  and 
nineteenth  centuries  in  nice  points  of  Biblical  criticism 
or  interpretation  ?  Verbal  inspiration  makes  Biblical 
critics  the  only  real  priests  of  the  Bible,  the  mediators 
of  the  divine  mysteries,  who  alone  have  real  access  to 
the  originals.  And  yet  these  disciples  of  verbal  inspira- 
tion are  the  very  ones  who  are  sounding  the  alarm 
that  the  critics  are  destroying  the  Bible.  The  critics 
are  destroying  the  scholastic  theory  of  verbal  inspira- 
tion, but  they  are  bringing  the  Biblical  doctrine  of 
plenary  inspiration  into  its  true  place  and  importance. 

We  shall  give  the  opinions  of  a  few  Presbyterians  of 
the  seventeenth  century  on  this  subject,  in  order  to  show 
how  far  modern  divines  have  departed  from  the  West- 
minster doctrine  of  the  Bible. 

"  All  language  or  writing  is  but  the  vessel,  the  symbol,  or  dec- 
laration of  the  rule,  not  the  rule  itself.  It  is  a  certain  form  or 
means  by  which  the  divine  truth  cometh  unto  us,  as  things  are 
contained  in  words,  and  because  the  doctrine  and  matter  of  the 
text  is  not  made  unto  one,  but  by  words  and  a  language  which  I 
understand ;  therefore  I  say,  the  Scripture  in  English  is  the  rule 
and  ground  of  my  faith,  and  whereupon  I  relying  have  not  a 
humane,  but  a  divine  authority  for  my  faith."  * 

"  For  it  is  not  the  shell  of  the  words,  but  the  kernel  of  the 
matter  which  commends  itself  to  the  consciences  of  men,  and 
that  is  the  same  in  all  languages.  The  Scriptures  in  English, 
no  less  than  in  Hebrew  or  Greek,  display  its  lustre  and  exert  its 
power  and  discover  the  character  of  its  divine  original."  f 

"  I  could  easily  demonstrate  that  the  Scripture  calls  the  originall 
translated  Scripture  and  not  without  just  reason,  for  the  Scrip- 
ture stands  not  in  corttce  verborum  but  in  medulla  sensus,  its  the 
same  wine  in  this  vessel  which  was  drawn  out  of  that.  Transla- 


*  William  Lyford,  "  Plain  Man's  Sense  Exercised,"  etc.,  p.  49. 
t  Matthew  Poole,  "  Blow  at  the  Root,"  London,  1679,  p.  234. 


teu 
'ord  f 
>ar- / 


WHITHER  ?  (if 

jtionsjire  but  vessels  or  taps  (as  I  may  call  them)  toset  Scr  i  ptures 
abroach ;  asTor  faults  and  errours  in  that  translation,  if  that  argu- 
ment be  able  to  batter  and  make  a  breach,  let  it  but  have  rope 
enough,  and  it  will  make  as  great  a  breach  in  the  Hebrew,  for 
when  you  come  to  find  that  there  are  variae  lectiones,  and  that 
in  the  margent  truer  than  that  in  the  text,  as  in  that  famous  place, 
Ps.  xxii.  17,  or  shall  question  the  true  pointing  or  printing  of  the 
originall,  whither  will  not  this  wild  argument  run  away  with  you, 
until  you  come  to  find  the  -very  original  written  by  the  prophets 
own  hand  or  by  the  hand  of  some  amanuensis  infallibly  directed 
and  guided ;  The  Scrifitiires^xfirest  in  English  are  the  Word 
of  God.  The  deficiency  of  exact  translation  of  this  or  that  par- 
ticular word  doth  not  invalidate  the  canon  or  bodie  of  the  Scrip-' 
tures."  * 

"  Now,  what  shall  a  poor  unlearned  Christian  do,  if  he  hath 
nothing  to  rest  his  poore  soul  on  ?  The  originals  he  understands 
not ;  if  he  did,  the  first  copies  are  not  to  be  had ;  he  cannot  tell 
whether  the  Hebrew  or  Greek  copies  be  the  right  Hebrew  or  the 
right  Greek,  or  that  which  is  said  to  be  the  meaning  of  the 
Hebrew  or  Greek,  but  as  men  tell  us,  who  are  not  prophets  and 
may  mistake.  Besides,  the  transcribers  were  men  and  might 
err.  These  considerations  let  in  Atheisme  like  a  flood."  t 

"The  Scriptures  in  themselves  are  a  Lanthorn  rather  than  a ^77*!  vc. 
Light;  they  shine,  indeed,  but  it  is  alieno lumine ;  it  is  not 
own,  bi\t  a  borrowed  light.  It  is  God  which  is  the  true  light  A  TT~ 
that  shines  to  us  in  the  Scriptures ;  and  they  have  no  other  light^ 
in  them,  but  as  they  represent  to  us  somewhat  of  God,  and  as 
they  exhibit  and  hold  forth  God  to  us,  who  is  the  true  light  that 
'  enlighteneth  every  man  that  comes  into  the  world.'  It  is  a  light, 
then,  as  it  represents  God  unto  us,  who  is  the  original  light.  It 
transmits  some  rays;  some  beams  of  the  divine  nature;  but  they 
are  refracted,  or  else  we  should  not  be  able  to  behold  them. 
They  lose  much  of  their  original  lustre  by  passing  through  this 
medium,  and  appear  not  so  glorious  to  us  as  they  are  in  them- 
selves. They  represent  God's  simplicity  obliquated  and  refracted, 
by  reason  of  many  inadequate  conceptions;  God  condescend- 


*  Richard  Vines,  "  Common's  Sermon,  March  10, 1646,"  p.  68. 
tRich.  Capel,  "Remains,"  London,  1658. 


68  SHIFTING. 

ing  to  the  weakness  of  our  capacity  to  speak  to  us  in  our  own 
dialect."* 

"  The  testimonie  of  the  Spirit  doth  not  teach  or  assure  us  of 
the  Letters,  syllables,  or  severall  words  of  holy  Scripture,  which 
are  onely  as  a  vessell,  to  carry  and  convey  that  heavenly  light 
unto  us,  but  it  doth  scale  in  our  hearts  the  saving  truth  con- 
tained in  those  sacred  writings  into  what  language  soever  they 
be  translated."  t 

/ 

INERRANCY  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES. 

It  is  claimed  by  President  Patton  that  inerrancy 
of  Scripture  is  essential  to  the  inspiration  of  the  Scrip- 
tures,^: and  Doctors  Hodge  and  Warfield  go  so  far  as 
to  say  that  "  a  proved  error  in  Scripture  contradicts 
not  only  our  doctrine,  but  the  Scripture's  claims,  and 
therefore  its  inspiration  in  making  those  claims."  § 

It  is  admitted  that  there  are  errors  in  the  present  text 
of  Scripture,  but  it  is  claimed  that  there  could  have 
been  no  errors  in  the  original  documents.  But  how  do 
we  know  this  ?  We  have  not  the  originals  and  can  never 
get  at  them.  Biblical  criticism  brings  us  closer  to  the 
originals,  but  does  not  remove  the  errors.  It  is  in  ac- 
cordance with  sound  logic  and  scientific  methods  to  form 
our  conception  of  the  original  documents  from  the  best 
documents  that  we  have.  The  presumption,  therefore, 
in  regard  to  errors  in  the  best  texts,  is  that  they  were  also 
in  the  original  documents.  It  is  sheer  assumption  to  claim 
that  the  original  documents  were  inerrant.  No  one  can 
be  persuaded  to  believe  in  the  inerrancy  of  Scripture, 


*John  Wallis,  "Sermons,"  Lond.,  1791,  pp.  127-8. 

t  John  Ball's   "Short  Treatise,   contayning  all  the  Principall  Grounds  of 
Christian  Religion,"  pp.  30-31.     Eleventh  Impression,  London,  1637. 
J  Presbyterian  Review \  voL  iv.,  p.  363. 
§  Presbyterian  Review^  vol.  ii.,  p.  245. 


WHITHER?  69 

except  by  a  priori  considerations  from  the  elaboration  of 
the  doctrine  of  verbal  inspiration. 

It  is  conceded  that  many  of  the  ablest  and  choicest 
spirits  of  modern  times,  such  as  Van  Oosterzee,  Tholuck, 
Neander,  Stier,  Lange,  and  Dorner,  admit  "  errors  and 
inaccuracies  in  matters  of  subordinate  importance."  * 
Indeed  theological  scholarship  in  Europe  is  overwhelm- 
ingly on  the  side  of  these  distinguished  divines.  And 
yet,  Doctors  Hodge  and  Warfield  do  not  hesitate  to  say : 

"  Nevertheless,  the  historical  faith  of  the  Church  has  always 
been,  that  all  the  affirmations  of  Scripture  of  all  kinds,  whether 
of  spiritual  doctrine  or  duty,  or  of  physical  or  historical  fact, 
or  of  psychological  or  philosophical  principle  are  without  any 
error,  when  the  ipsissima  verba  of  the  original  autographs  are 
ascertained  and  interpreted  in  their  natural  and  intended  sense."  t 

This  statement  of  these  recent  divines  is  contrary  to 
the  facts  of  the  case,  for — (i).  The  historic  faith  of  the 
Church  is  to  be  found  in  the  official  symbolical  books  and 
nowhere  else.  None  of  these  symbols  state  that  the 
"  ipsissima  verba  of  the  original  autographs  are  without 
error." 

(2).  It  is  well  known  that  the  great  Reformers  recog- 
nized errors  in  the  Scriptures  and  did  not  hold  to  the 
inerrancy  of  the  original  autographs.:}:  Are  these  Prince- 
ton divines  entitled  to  pronounce  Luther  and  Calvin 
heterodox,  and  to  define  the  faith  of  the  universal 
Church  ? 

(3).  The  Westminster  divines  did  not  teach  the  iner- 
rancy of  the  original  autographs. 


*  Presbyterian  Review,  vol.  ii.,  p.  244. 
t  Presbyterian  Review,  vol.  ii.,  p.  238. 
\  See  Briggs'  "  Biblical  Study,"  p.  141. 


70  SHIFTING. 

The  saintly  Rutherford  thus  expresses  their  views  : 

/£  "  Now,  if  we  have  no  better  warrant,  that  the  books  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testament,  that  we  now  have,  to  wit,  the  originall  of 
Hebrew  and  Greek  and  translations  are  the  word  of  God,  then 
that  which  is  made  of  the  credit  of  the  authority  and  learning  of 
men,  then  must  all  our  comfort  of  beleeving  be  grounded  upon 
this  man's,  and  this  man's  Grammar  and  skill,  in  Hebrew,  Greek, 
Latine,  English,  and  he  is  not  infallible  in  any  of  these.  And 
must  our  lively  hope  be  bottomed  on  men's  credit  and  learning? 
Then  for  anything  we  know  on  the  contrary,  we  have  but  dreams, 
opinions,  and  at  best,  man's  word,  for  the  word  of  God,  and 
how  is  the  word  of  Propheste  a  more  sure  word ;  for  these  were 
written  and  translated  prophesies,  of  which  Peter  speaketh  ; 
Mr.  Goodwin  and  Libertines,  who  put  heaven  and  Christ,  and  the 
lively  hope  of  our  inheritance,  to  the  conjectures  of  doubting 
Scepticks  could  well  reply  to  Peter,  the  word  of  prophesie  cannot 
be  sure ;  for  we  have  no  certainty  that  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Prophets,  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  which  we  have  either 
Hebrew  or  Greek  copies  of,  are  the  word  of  God,  but  undoubtedly 
Christ  appealeth  to  the  Scriptures  as  to  the  onely  Judge  of  that 
controversie,  between  him  and  the  Jewes,  whether  the  Son  of  Mary 
was  the  eternall  Son  of  God,  and  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  he  sup- 
posed the  written  Scriptures  which  came  through  the  hands  of 
fallible  Printers  and  Translatours,  and  were  copies  at  the  second, 
if  not  at  the  twentieth  hand  from  the  first  copy  of  Moses  and  the 
Prophets,  and  so  were  written  by  sinfull  men,  who  might  have  mis- 
written  and  corrupted  the  Scripture,  yet  to  be  a  judge  and  a  rule 
of  faith,  and  fit  to  determine  that  controversie  and  all  others,  and 
a  Judge  de  facto,  and  actually  preserved  by  a  divine  hand  from 
errours,  mistakes  and  corruptions,  else  Christ  might,  in  that,  ap- 
pealed to  a  lying  Judge,  and  a  corrupt  and  uncertaine  witnesse  ; 
and  though  there  be  errours  of  number,  genealogies,  etc.,  of 
writing  in  the  Scripture,  as  written  or  printed,  yet  we  hold 
providence  watcheth  so  over  it,  that  in  the  body  of  articles  of 
faith,  and  necessary  truths,  we  are  certaine  with  the  certainty  of 
faith,  it  is  that  same  very  word  of  God,  having  the  same  speciall 
operations  of  enlightning  the  eyes,  converting  the  soule,  making 
wise  the  simple,  as  being  lively,  sharper  than  a  two-edged  sword, 
full  of  divinity,  life,  majesty,  power,  simplicity,  wisdome,  cer- 


WHITHER?  Yl 

tainty,  etc.,  which  the  Prophets  of  old,  and  the  writings  of  the 
Evangelists,  and  Apostles  had."  * 

Richard  Baxter  was  the  leading  Presbyterian  of  has  f^^L 
time.     He  knew  what  he  was  about  in  his  warning: 

"And  here  I  must  tell  you  a  great  and  needful  truth,  which  £ 
....  Christians  fearing  to  confess,  by  overdoing  tempt  men  to  / 
Infidelity.  The  Scripture  is  like  a  man's  body,  where  some  parts 
are  but  for  the  preservation  of  the  rest,  and  may  be  maimed  with- 
out death :  The  sense  is  the  soul  of  the  Scripture ;  and  the  let- 
ters but  the  body,  or  vehicle.  The  doctrine  of  the  Creed,  Lord's 
Prayer,  and  Decalogue,  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  is  the 
vital  part,  and  Christianity  itself.  The  Old  Testament  letter 
(written  as  we  have  it  about  Ezra's  time)  is  that  vehicle  which 
is  as  imperfect  as  the  Revelation  of  these  times  was:  But  as 
after  Christ's  incarnation  and  ascension,  the  Spirit  was  more 
abundantly  given,  and  the  Revelation  more  perfect  and  sealed, 
so  the  doctrine  is  more  full  and  the  vehicle  or  body,  that  is,  the 
words  are  less  imperfect  and  more  sure  to  us ;  so  that  he  that 
doubteth  of  the  truth  of  some  words  in  the  Old  Testament,  or  of 
some  circumstances  in  the  New,  hath  no  reason  therefore  to 
doubt  of  the  Christian  religion,  of  which  these  writings  are  but 
the  vehicle  or  body,  sufficient  to  ascertain  us  of  the  truth  of  the 
History  and  Doctrine."  t 

The  modern  Presbyterian  Church  will  hesitate  a  long 
time  before  they  rule  out  Baxter  and  Rutherford  from 
orthodoxy  in  the  interests  of  a  new  theory  of  the  iner- 
rancy of  Scripture. 

The  doctrine  of  the  inerrancy  of  Scripture  not  only 
comes  into  conflict  with  the  historical  faith  of  the 
Church,  but  it  is  also  in  conflict  with  Biblical  criticism. 
We  shall  not  attempt  to  array  the  line  of  supposed 
errors  in  the  Scriptures  over  against  the  theory  of  the 


*  Samuel  Rutherford,    "  A  Free  Disputation  against  pretended  Liberty  of 
Conscience,"  London,  1649,  pp.  365-6. 
t  "  The  Catechising  of  Families,"  1683,  p.  36. 


72  SHIFTING. 

inerrancy  of  the  Scripture.  These  dogmaticians  give 
up  their  case  if  we  can  show  a  single  error.  It  seems  to 
me  that  no  candid  mind  without  invincible  dogmatic 
prepossessions,  can  doubt  that  there  is  an  error  of  cita- 
tion in  Matt,  xxvii.  9,  that  goes  back  to  the  original 
autograph.  A  passage  is  cited  from  Jeremiah  that  be- 
longs in  Zechariah.  Dr.  Warfield  tries  hard  to, overcome 
this  error  by  three  "plausible"  theories.*  They  may 
seem  plausible  to  Dr.  Warfield,  the  advocate,  but  I  doubt 
whether  any  one  will  be  convinced  by  any  of  the  three, 
who  is  not  over-anxious  to  be  convinced.  One  good 
reason  would  vastly  outweigh  these  three  poor  ones. 
As  I  have  said  elsewhere,  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is  vain 
to  deny  that  there  are  errors  and  inconsistencies  in  the 
best  texts  of  our  Bible.  There  are  chronological, 
geographical,  and  other  circumstantial  inconsistencies 
and  errors  which  we  should  not  hesitate  to  acknowledge. 
But  such  errors  of  inadvertence  in  minor  details  where 
the  author's  position  and  character  are  well  known  do 
not  destroy  his  credibility  as  a  witness  in  any  literature 
or  in  any  court  of  justice.  It  is  not  to  be  presumed  that 
divine  inspiration  lifted  the  author  above  his  age  any 
more  than  was  necessary  to  convey  the  divine  revelation 
and  the  divine  instruction  with  infallible  certainty  to 
mankind.  The  question  of  credibility  is  to  be  distin- 
guished  from  infallibility.  The  form  is  credible,  the 
substance  alone  is  infallible.f 

But  whatever  interpretation  we  may  give  to  these 
errors,  however  much  we  may  reduce  them  in  number, 
the  awkward  fact  stares  us  in  the  face,  that  these  Prince- 
ton divines  risk  the  inspiration  and  authority  of  the 
Bible  upon  a  single  proved  error.  Such  a  position  is  a 


*  Presbyterian  Review,  p.  259.  t  Briggs'  "  Biblical  Study,"  p.  240. 


WHITHER?  Y3 

serious  and  hazardous  departure  from  Protestant  ortho- 
doxy. It  imperils  the  faith  of  all  Christians  who  have 
been  taught  this  doctrine.  They  cannot  escape  the  evi- 
dence of  errors  in  the  Scriptures.  This  evidence  will  be 
thrust  upon  them  whether  they  will  or  not.  They  must 
either  shut  their  eyes  or  give  up  their  doctrine  of  inspira- 
tion. If  they  have  no  better  doctrine  to  put  in  its  place 
their  faith  in  the  Bible  will  be  destroyed.  What  an 
awful  doctrine  to  teach  in  our  days  when  Biblical  criti- 
cism has  the  field  !  What  a  peril  to  precious  souls  there 
is  in  the  terse,  pointed  sentence,  "  A  proved_error  in  %<i^^  s, 
Scripture  contradicts  not  only  our  doctrine  but  the//  — 
Scripture  claims,  and  therefore  its  inspiration  in  making 
those  claims  "  !  Nojnore_da.ngerous  doctrine  has  ever 
come  from  the  pen  of  men.  It  has  cost  the  Church  the' 
loslTof  Th ousands.  It  wilF  cost  us  ten  thousand  and 
Hundreds  of  thousands  unless  the  true  Westminsterjipc- 
trihe  is  speedily  put  in  its  place.  This  false  doctrine  cin 
culates  in  a  tract  bearing~the  imprint  of  the  Presbyterian 
Board  of  Publication,  among  our  ministers  and  people, 
poisoning  their  souls  and  misleading  them  into  danger- 
ous error.  This  is  one  of  the  reasons  of  the  outcry 
against  Biblical  criticism.  Biblical  criticism  certainly 
destroys  "  our  doctrine,"  but  it  does  not  destroy  the 
"  Scripture  claims."  Biblical  criticism  enters  into  irre- 
pressible conflict  with  this  modern  doctrine,  but  it  rescues 
the  Westminster  and  Reformation  doctrine  of  the  Scrip- 
ture, and  saves  the  faith  of  the  Church  in  the  Word  of 
God. 

THE  AUTHORITY  OF  THE   SCRIPTURES. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  builds  the  authority  of 
the  Scriptures  upon  the  authority  of  the  Church.  This 
results  in  making  the  Church  of  Rome  the  supreme  and 


74:  SHIFTING. 

infallible  guide  of  men.  The  Protestant  Reformation 
recognized  the  sacred  Scriptures  themselves  as  the  sole 
authority  over  the  consciences  and  life  of  men.  This 
Protestant  doctrine  is  set  forth  in  all  the  symbols  of  the 
Reformation  except  the  XXXIX  Articles,  which  took 
an  intermediate  position,  and  based  the  authority  of  the 
canon  on  the  testimony  of  the  ancient  Church. 
We  shall  cite  a  tew  ot  the  Reformed  confessions : 

"  We  believe  and  confess  the  canonical  Scriptures  of  the  holy 
prophets  to  be  the  very  true  Word  of  God  and  to  have  sufficient 
authority  of  themselves,  not  of  men." 
/  /      "  Therefore,  in  controversies  of  religion  or  matters  of  faith  we 

1  cannot  admit  any  other  judge  than  God  Himself,  pronouncing 
/  by  the  holy  Scriptures  what  is  true  and  what  is  false ;  what  is  to 
I  be  followed,  or  what  is  to  be  avoided."  * 

*-    "  We  know  these  books  to  be  canonical,  and  the  sure  rule  of 
I  our  faith,  not  so  much  by  the  common  accord  and  consent  of  the 
^  I  Church,  as  by  the  testimony  and  inward  persuasion  of  the  Holy 
/  Spirit,  which  enables  us  to  distinguish  them  from  other  ecclesi- 
>**vv_astical  books."  t 

"  The  authority  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  for  which  it  ought  to 
rbe  believed  and  obeyed,  dependeth  not  upon  the  testimony  of 
any  man  or  church,  but  wholly  upon  God,  (who  is  truth  itself,) 
the  author  thereof ;  and  therefore  it  is  to  be  received,  because 
it  is  the  word  of  God." 
.<4 


"  We  may  be  moved  and  induced  by  the  testimony  of  the 
•  church  to  an  high  and  reverent  esteem  for  the  Holy  Scripture ; 
""X  and  the  heavenliness  of  the  matter,  the  efficacy  of  the  doctrine, 
I  the  majesty  of  the  style,  the  consent  of  all  the  parts,  the  scope  of 
I  the  whole,  (which  is  to  give  all  glory  to  God,)  the  full  discovery 
/   it  makes  of  the  only  way  of  man's  salvation,  the  many  other  in- 
I    comparable  excellencies,  and  the  entire  perfection  thereof,  are 
arguments  whereby  it  doth  abundantly  evidence  itself  to  be  the 
word  of  God ;  yet,  notwithstanding,  our  full  persuasion  and  as- 
\   surance  of  the  infallible  truth,  and  divine  authority  thereof,  is 

*  "  ad  Helvetic  Confession,"  i.  and  ii. 

t  "  Galilean  Confession,"  iv.    See  also  the  u  Belgian  Confession,"  v. 


WHITHER  ?  75 

from  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  bearing  witness  by  and 
with  the  word  in  our  hearts."  * 

The  Westminster  Confession  here  carefully  states 
several  kinds  of  evidence  for  the  divine  authority  of  the  /,  •  •  A 
Holy  Scripture.     The  authority  of  the  Church  cannot  /  ' 


give  us  any  more  than  "  a  high  and  reverent  esteem 
the  Holy  Scripture."  The  authority  of  the  Church  leads  r^ 
us  to  follow  its  probable  testimony  in  the  search  for 
better  evidence.  The  internal  evidences  of  the  "  ex- 
cellencies and  entire  perfection  thereof"  now  present 
themselves,  and  under  the  influence  of  these  features  of 
the  Holy  Scripture  we  feel  that  these  are  "  arguments 
whereby  it  doth  abundantly  evidence  itself  to  be  the 
Word  of  God."  But  even  the  powerful  weight  of  in- 
ternal evidence  does  not  give  assurance  and  certainty, 
for  "  our  full  persuasion  and  assurance  of  the  infallible 
truth,  and  divine  authority  thereof"  comes  only  from 
"  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  bearing  witness  by 
and  with  the  word  in  our  hearts."  In  accordance  with 
this  "  the  authority  of  the  Holy  Scripture  dependeth 
wholly  upon  God."  On  this  principle  the  canon  is  de- 
termined. The  books  of  the  canon  are  named,  and  then 
it  is  said,  "  All  which  are  given  by  inspiration  of  God  to 
be  the  rule  of  faith  and  life."  The  apocryphal  books 
are  no  part  of  the  canon  of  Scripture,  because  they  are 
not  of  divine  inspiration.  It  is,  therefore,  the  authority 
of  God  Himself,  speaking  through  the  Holy  Spirit,  by 
and  with  the  Word  to  the  heart,  that  determines  that  the 
writings  are  infallible  as  the  inspired  word  of  God  ;  and 
jt  is  their  inspiration  that  determines  their  canonicity.f 


*  "  Westminster  Confession,"  i.  4-5. 

t  Cf.  Briggs'  "  Biblical  Study,"  pp.  116  seq. 


Y(j  SHIFTING. 

Jolm_Calvin  expressed  the  views  of  the  Reformers 
when  he  said : 

"  But  there  has  very  generally  prevailed  a  most  pernicious 
error  that  the  Scriptures  have  only  so  much  weight  as  is  con- 
ceded to  them  by  the  suffrages  of  the  Church,  as  though  the 
eternal  and  inviolable  truth  of  God  depended  on  the  arbitrary 
will  of  men."  .  .  .  .  "  For,  as  God  alone  is  a  sufficient  witness  of 
Himself  in  His  own  Word,  so  also  the  Word  will  never  gain 
credit  in  the  hearts  of  men  till  it  be  confirmed  by  the  internal 
testimony  of  the  Spirit.  It  is  necessary,  therefore,  that  the  same 
Spirit,  who  spake  by  the  mouths  of  the  prophets,  should  pene- 
trate into  our  hearts,  to  convince  us  that  they  faithfully  delivered 
the  oracles  which  were  divinely  intrusted  to  them."  ! 

And  Charles  Herle,  the  prolocutor  (moderator)  of  the 
Westminster  Assembly,  explained  the  Westminster  po- 
sition in  these  words :  f 

"  They  (the  Papists)  being  asked,  why  they  believe  the  Scrip- 
ture to  be  the  Word  of  God?  Answer,  because  the  Church  says 
'tis  so ;  and  being  asked  againe,  why  they  beleeve  the  Church  ? 
They  answer,  because  the  Scripture  saies  it  shall  be  guided  into 
truth ;  and  being  asked  againe,  why  they  beleeve  that  very 
Scripture  that  says  so  ?  They  answer,  because  the  Church  says 
'tis  Scripture,  and  so  (with  those  in  the  Psalm  xii.  8),  they  walk 
in  a  circle  or  on  every  side.  They  charge  the  like  on  us  (but 
wrongfully)  that  we  beleeve  the  Word,  because  it  sayes  it  self 
that  it  is  so ;  but  we  do  not  so  resolve  our  Faith  ;  we  believe  unto 
salvation,  not  the  Word  barely,  because  it  witnesses  to  itself,  but 
because  the  Spirit  speaking  in  it  to  our  consciences  witnesses  to 
them  that  it  is  the  Word  indeed  ;  we  resolve  not  our  Faith  barely 
either  into  the  Word,  or  Spirit,  as  its  single  ultimate  principle, 
but  into  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  speaking  to  our  consciences 
in  the  Word."  J 

Dr.  Patton  does  not  hesitate  to  recognize  that  his 


*  Calvin's  "  Institutes,"  i.  7. 

t  See  also  p.  70  for  Rutherford's  testimony. 

\  Chas.  Herle,  "  Detur  Sapienti,"  pp.  152-3.     Lond.,  1655. 


WHITHER?  77 

own  views  are  a  departure  from  the  faith  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, for  he  says : 

"  It  does  not  tend  in  the  slightest  degree  to  reconcile  us  tcr*' 
these  opinions  to  say  that  the  reformers  entertained  them.  It 
would  not  be  strange  if  in  their  opposition  to  the  claims  of  the 
church  of  Rome,  they  went  to  the  opposite  extreme  and  were 
in  danger  of  falling  into  the  errors  of  the  mystics."  * 

Dr.  Patton  indeed  simply  reaffirms  the  position  of 
Dr.  Archibald  Alexander,  the  Father_of  the  Princeton 
theology,  who  says : 

"The  high  claims  of  the  Romish  church,  in  regard  to  the  au-  *^ 
thority  of  fixing  the  Canon,  have  already  been  disproved."  .  .  .  . 
"By  the  authority  of  the  church,  they  understand  a  power^ ^ 
lodged  in  the  church  of  Rome,  to  determine  what  books  shall 
be  received  as  the  word  of  God  ;  than  which  it  is  scarcely  possi- 
ble to  conceive  of  anything  more  absurd.  In  avoiding  this  ex- 
treme, some  Protestants  have  verged  towards  the  opposite,  and 
have  asserted,  that  the  only,  or  principal  evidence  of  the  canoni- 
cal authority  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  is,  their  internal  evidence. 
Even  some  churches  went  so  far  as  to  insert  this  opinion  in  their 
public  confessions. t  Now,  it  ought  not  to  be  doubted  that  the 
internal  evidence  of  the  Scriptures  is  exceedingly  strong ;  and 
that  when  the  mind  of  the  reader  is  truly  illuminated,  it  derives 
from  this  source  the  most  unwavering  conviction  of  their  truth 
and  divine  authority ;  but  that  every  sincere  Christian  should  be 
able,  in  all  cases,  by  this  internal  light,  to  distinguish  between 
canonical  books  and  such  as  are  not,  is  surely  no  very  safe  or 
reasonable  opinion.  Suppose  that  a  thousand  books  of  various 
kinds,  including  the  canonical,  were  placed  before  any  sincere 
Christian,  would  he  be  able,  without  mistake,  to  select  from 
this  mass  the  twenty-seven  books  of  which  the  New  Testament 
is  composed,  if  he  had  nothing  to  guide  him  but  the  internal 
evidence  ?  Would  every  such  person  be  able  at  once  to  deter- 
mine, whether  the  book  of  Ecclestastes,  or  of  Ecclesiasttcus,  be- 
longed to  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  by  internal  evidence 


*  Presbyterian  Review,  vol.  iv.,  p.  346. 

t  See  the  Confession  of  the  Reformed  Gallican  Church,  quoted  on  p.  74. 


78  SHIFTING. 

alone  ?  *  It  is  certain,  that  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
necessary  to  produce  a  true  faith  in  the  word  of  God ;  but  to 
make  this  the  only  criterion  by  which  to  judge  of  the  canonical 
authority  of  a  book  is  certainly  liable  to  strong  objections.  The 
tendency  of  this  doctrine  is  to  enthusiasm,  and  the  consequence 
of  acting  upon  it,  would  be  to  unsettle,  rather  than  establish,  the 
Canon  of  Holy  Scripture."  t 

In  this  passage  Dr.  Alexander  throws  himself  against 
the  Gallican  Confession,  as  he  acknowledges,  but  he 
probably  did  not  realize  that  he  was  going  against  the 
unanimous  testimony  of  the  Reformed  Confessions,  the 
Westminster  Standards,  and  the  entire  body  of  conti- 
nental Protestants  and  British  Puritans ;  and  he  certain- 
ly did  not  apprehend  the  peril  of  his  departure  from  the 
fundamental  principle  of  the  Reformation. 

Dr.  Alexander  not  only  departed  from  the  principle 
of  the  Reformation,  but  actually  went  over  into  the 
camp  of  the  Roman  Catholics,  and  followed  the  guid- 
ance of  a  Jesuit  in  his  doctrine  of  the  Canon  of  Scrip- 
ture. This  is  clear  from  the  following  extract : 

"  As  to  the  proper  method  of  settling  the  Canon  of  the  New 
Testament,  the  same  course  must  be  pursued  as  has  been  done 
in  respect  to  the  Old.  We  must  have  recourse  to  authentic 
history,  and  endeavor  to  ascertain  what  books  were  received  as 
genuine  by  the  primitive  church  and  early  Fathers.  The  con- 
temporaries, and  immediate  successors  of  the  apostles,  are  the 
most  competent  witnesses  in  this  case.  If,  among  these,  there  is 
found  to  have  been  a  general  agreement,  as  to  what  books  were 
canonical,  it  will  go  far  to  satisfy  us  respecting  the  true  Canon ; 
for  it  cannot  be  supposed,  that  they  could  easily  be  deceived  in  a 
matter  of  this  sort.  A  general  consent  of  the  early  Fathers,  and 
of  the  primitive  church,  therefore,  furnishes  conclusive  evidence 
on  this  point,  and  is  that  species  of  evidence  which  is  least  liable 


*  See  p.  149  for  Rutherford's  reply  to  this  argument, 
t  Arch.  Alexander,  "  Canon  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,"  pp.  114-116. 


WHITHER  ?  79 

to  fallacy  or  abuse.  The  learned  Huet  has,  therefore,  assumed  it  as 
a  maxim, '  That  every  book  is  genuine,  which  was  esteemed  genuine 
by  those  who  lived  nearest  to  the  time  when  it  was  written,  and  by 
the  ages  following,  in  a  continued  series'  *  The  reasonableness  of 
this  rule  will  appear  more  evident,  when  we  consider  the  great 
esteem  with  which  theseVbooks  were  at  first  received ;  the  con- 
stant public  reading  of  them  in  the  churches,  and  the  early  ver- 
sion of  them  into  other  languages."  t 

Dr.  Archibald  Alexander  thus  gave  himself  unreserv- 
edly into  the  hands  of  the  learned  Jesuit  without  seeing 
the  trap  iato  which  he  had  fallen.  Those  following  him 
have  all  fallen  into  the  same  error.  They  have  aban- 
doned the  principle  of  the  Scriptures  as  maintained  by 
Luther,  Calvin,  Knox,  and  Cartwright,  the  Reformed 
Confessions,  and  the  Westminster  divines,  and  have  tried 
to  find  the  rock  of  our  faith  in  the  shifting  sand  of  hu- 
man tradition. 

The  Jesuit  might  safely  pursue  this  method,  for  he 
re-enforces  it  by  the  infallible  authority  of  the  living 
Church,  but  the  Protestant  is  left  to  the  uncertainties  of 
historic  tradition.  It  is  true  that  the  Anglican  Reforma- 
tion stopped  at  this  half-way  house,  as  they  did  at  others 
in  their  Reformation  of  the  English  Church,  when  they 
laid  down  the  principle — 

"  In  the  name  of  Holy  Scripture  we  do  understand  those 
canonical  books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  of  whose  au- 
thority was  never  any  doubt  in  the  Church."  .  .  .  .  "  All  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament,  as  they  are  commonly  received,  we  do  re- 
ceive and  account  them  for  canonical."  J 

But  the  Westminster  divines  made  these  significant 
changes  in  this  Article  of  Faith  when  they  revised  it : 


*  "  Demonstratio  Evang." 

t  Arch.  Alexander,  "  Canon  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,"  pp.  113,  114. 

t  The  XXXIX  Articles— Art.  vi. 


80  SHIFTING. 

"  By  the  name  of  Holy  Scripture  we  understand  all  the  canon- 
ical Books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  which  follow  :  .  .  .  . 
All  which  books,  as  they  are  commonly  received,  we  do  receive, 
and  acknowledge  them  to  be  given  by  the  inspiration  of  God  ; 
and  in  that  regard,  to  be  of  most  certain  credit  and  highest  author- 
ity." * 

The  Anglican  view  of  the  authority  of  Scripture  is 
consistent  with  the  appeal  of  the  Anglo-Catholics  to  the 
early  Christian  Church  for  authority  in  matters  of  church 
government  and  worship  ;  but  it  is  entirely  inconsistent 
with  the  Puritan  appeal  to  the  Scriptures  alone. 

This  doctrine  of  basing  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures 
on  the  authority  of  the  early  Church  commits  two  faults, 
both  of  which  undermine  the  faith  of  the  Reformation. 

(a).  It  comes  in  conflict  with  historical  criticism.  It 
reopens  the  question  of  the  Apocryphal  books  of  the 
Old  Testament,  which  were  acknowledged  by  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  in  accordance  with  the  predominant 
tradition,  but  were  rejected  by  the  Reformed  Churches 
in  spite  of  that  tradition.  It  raises  questions  in  the 
canon  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  for  it  is  well 
known  that  there  are  books  therein  that  were  not  unani- 
mously received  by  the  early  Church.  There  are  some 
doubtful  books.  We  cannot  reach  certainty  as  to  the 
canon  by  historical  criticism.  We  can  only  at  the  best 
obtain  the  result  that  there  is  unanimous  agreement  in 
the  early  Church  as  to  certain  books  ;  that  there  were 
some  objections  to  several  others  ;  that  still  other  books 
had  many  opponents,  and  that  some  writings  were  doubt- 
ful. The  sum  total  of  this  evidence  is  at  its  best,  proba- 
bility as  to  most  books  and  doubt  as  to  others,  but  cer- 
tainty in  no  case. 

(&).  It  builds  the  faith  on  human  evidence  that  can 


*  The  XXXIX  Articles,  revised— Article  vi. 


WHITHER?  gl 

never  claim  absolute,  unquestioned  authority ;  or  give 
divine  infallibility  and  certainty.  Are  we,  then,  to  build 
the  authority  of  the  divine  Word  on  human  authority? 
We  do  not  give  unquestioned  allegiance  to  the  early 
Church  in  other  matters  of  faith  and  practice,  why  should 
we  grant  them  the  last  word  as  to  the  foundations  of 
our  faith  ?  True  Protestants,  the  sons  of  the  Reformers 
and  Puritans,  will  never  build  their  confidence  in  the 
Word  of  God  except  on  the  rock  of  divine  evidence. 
"  Not  because  men  or  kirk  sayeth  it,  but  because  God 
quho  can  not  lie  sayeth  it."  * 

No  historical  student  can  possibly  accept  any  book  as 
divinely  inspired  simply  because  the  Church  of  the  first 
three  centuries  reached  that  conclusion.  If  these  doe- 

o 

maticians  build  on  such  evidence  for  canonicity,  they 
put  their  students,  and  the  people  who  follow  them,  in 
grave  peril,  so  soon  as  they  are  confronted  with  the 
troublesome  questions  of  historical  criticism.  The  Re- 
formers and  the  Westminster  divines  could  not  commit 
such  folly.  No  wiles  of  Jesuits  could  mislead  them,  they 
built  on  the  fides  divina — the  divine  evidence  of  the  tes- 
timony of  the  Spirit — and  those  who  do  not  build  with 
them  abandon  the  rock  of  the  Reformation. 

AUTHENTICITY  AND   CANONICITY. 

The  elder  and  the  younger  Hodge  depart  still  further 
than  their  teacher,  Dr.  Alexander,  from  the  Westminster 
position,  by  mixing  inspiration  and  canonicity  with  ques- 
tions of  authenticity.  The  Higher  or  Literary  Criticism 
of  the  Scriptures  has  to  determine  questions  of  authen- 
ticity ;  that  is,  whether  a  writing  is  anonymous,  pseu- 
donymous, or  bears  the  name  of  its  author ;  whether 


*  Rutherford's  Catechism,  i.  6. 


g2  SHIFTING. 

the  traditional  theories  as  to  authorship  are  correct  or 
not.  The  Reformers  and  the  Westminster  divines  did  not 
determine  these  questions  of  the  Higher  Criticism  for 
us.  In  none  of  the  Catechisms  or  Confessions  do  we 
find  deliverances  on  these  questions.  In  none  of  them 
are 'the  questions  of  inspiration  and  canonicity  mingled 
with  authenticity. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  divines  of  the  sixteenth 
century  were  free  in  their  expression  of  differences  on 
these  matters  of  human  authorship.  The  Westminster 
Confession  excludes  human  authorship  from  the  inspira- 
tion and  divine  authority  of  the  Scriptures,  when  it 
states : 

"  The  authority  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  for  which  it  ought  to 
be  believed  and  obeyed,  dependeth  not  upon  the  testimony  of 
any  man."* 

Dr.  Charles  Hodge  takes  the  following  position  : 

"  Before  entering  on  the  consideration  of  these  points,  it  is 
necessary  to  answer  the  question,  What  books  are  entitled  to  a 
place  in  the  canon,  or  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ?  Romanists 
answer  this  question  by  saying,  that  all  those  which  the  Church 
has  decided  to  be  divine  in  their  origin,  and  none  others,  are  to 
be  thus  received.  Protestants  answer  it  by  saying,  so  far  as  the 
Old  Testament  is  concerned,  that  those  books,  and  those  only, 
which  Christ  and  His  Apostles  recognized  as  the  written  Word 
of  God,  are  entitled  to  be  regarded  as  canonical All,  there- 
fore, that  is  necessary  to  determine  for  Christians  the  canon  of 
the  Old  Testament,  is  to  ascertain  what  books  were  included  in 
the  '  Scriptures '  recognized  by  the  Jews  of  that  period.  This  is 
a  point  about  which  there  is  no  reasonable  doubt.  The  Jewish 
canon  of  the  Old  Testament  included  all  the  books  and  no  others, 
which  Protestants  now  recognize  as  constituting  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Scriptures.  On  this  ground  Protestants  reject  the  so-called 
apocryphal  books.  They  were  not  written  in  Hebrew  and  were 

*  I.,  4. 


WHITHER  ?  83 

not  included  in  the  canon  of  the  Jews.  They  were,  therefore, 
not  recognized  by  Christ  as  the  Word  of  God.  This  reason  is 
of  itself  sufficient.  It  is  however  confirmed  by  considerations 
drawn  from  the  character  of  the  books  themselves.  They  abound 
in  errors,  and  in  statements  contrary  to  those  found  in  the  un- 
doubtedly canonical  books.  The  principle  on  which  the  canon 
of  the  New  Testament  is  determined  is  equally  simple.  Those 
books,  and  those  only  which  can  be  proved  to  have  been  written 
by  the  Apostles,  or  to  have  received  their  sanction,  are  to  be 
recognized  as  of  divine  authority.  The  reason  of  this  rule  is 
obvious.  The  Apostles  were  the  duly  authenticated  messengers 
of  Christ,  of  whom  He  said, '  He  that  heareth  you,  heareth  me.'  "* 

This  method  of  determining  the  canon  of  Scripture 
bases  its  authority  on  the  authority  of  its  human  au- 
thors and  so  comes  into  conflict  with  the  Higher  Criti- 
cism all  along  the  line  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 

(i).  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge  says : 

"  Christ  and  his  apostles  endorse  as  genuine  and  authentic  the 

canon  of  Jewish  Scriptures  as  it  existed  in  their  time The 

Jewish  canon  thus  endorsed  by  Christ  and  his  apostles  is  the 
same  as  that  we  now  have."  t 

Dr.  Hodge  rests  the  canonicity  of  the  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  upon  this  question  of  fact.  Biblical 
criticism  answers  it  thus: 

"Jesus  gives  His  authority  to  the  law,  the  prophets,  and  the 
psalms  (Luke  xxiv.  44),  which  alone  were  used  in  the  synagogue 
in  His  times ;  but  the  psalms  only  of  the  Hagiographa  are  men- 
tioned. There  are  no  sufficient  reasons  for  concluding  that  by 
the  psalms  Jesus  meant  all  the  other  books  besides  law  and 

prophets The  New  Testament  carefully  abstains  from 

using  the  writings  disputed  among  the  Jews.  It  does  not  use  at 
all  Ecclesiastes,  Song  of  Songs,  Esther,  Ezra,  Nehemiah  j  and  only 


*  "  Systematic  Theology,"  vol.  i.,  pp.  152-3. 

t  "  Commentary  on-the  Confession  of  Faith,"  p.  53. 


84  SHIFTING. 

incidentally  Ezekiel  and  Chronicles,  in  the  same  way  as  apocry- 
phal books  and  pseudepigraphical  are  used."  * 

Dr.  Hodge's  principle  for  determining  the  canon  of 
the  Old  Testament  would  rule  out  several  important 
writings. 

(2).  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge  states 

"  We  determine  what  books  have  a  place  in  this  canon  or  divine 
rule  by  an  examination  of  the  evidences  which  show  that  each 
of  them,  severally,  was  written  by  the  inspired  prophet  or  apos- 
tle whose  name  it  bears,  or,  as  in  the  case  of  the  gospels  of  Mark 
and  Luke,  written  under  the  superintendence  and  published  by 
the  authority  of  an  apostle.  This  evidence  in  the  case  of  the 
sacred  Scriptures  is  of  the  same  kind  of  historical  and  critical 
proof  as  is  relied  upon  by  all  literary  men  to  establish  the  genu- 
ineness and  authenticity  of  any  other  ancient  writings,  such  as 
the  Odes  of  Horace  or  the  works  of  Herodotus.  In  general  this 
evidence  is  (a)  Internal, — such  as  language,  style  and  the  charac- 
ter of  the  matter  they  contain  ;  (&)  External, — such  as  the  testi- 
mony of  contemporaneous  writers,  the  universal  consent  of  con- 
temporary readers,  and  corroborating  history  drawn  from  inde- 
pendent credible  sources."  t 

The  inspiration,  the  canonicity,  and  the  authority  of 
the  Bible  depends,  therefore,  upon  the  results  of  the 
Higher  Criticism.  We  are  obliged,  first,  to  prove  that 
a  writing  was  composed  by  an  "  inspired  prophet  or 
apostle  whose  name  it  bears,  or,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
gospels  of  Mark  and  Luke,  written  under  the  superin- 
tendence and  published  by  the  authority  of  an  apostle." 
But  we  cannot  prove  this  for  all  the  writings  of  the 
canon. 

(a).  It  is  probable  that  the  gospel  of  Mark  was  written 
under  the  influence  of  Peter,  and  the  gospel  of  Luke  un- 


*  Briggs'  "  Biblical  Study,"  pp.  131,  132. 

t  "  Commentary  on  the  Confession  of  Faith,"  pp.  51-2. 


WHITHER  ?  85 

der  the  influence  of  Paul,  but  there  is  no  evidence  that 
the  apostles  superintended  the  writing  and  publication 
of  these  gospels,  and  it  is  not  certain  that  they  had  very 
much  to  do  with  them.  Are  we  to  reject  these  gospels 
because  there  is  uncertainty  as  to  apostolic  superintend- 
ence and  influence? 

(&).  The  consensus  of  criticism  is  against  the  Pauline 
authorship  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  There  is  no 
probability  that  Paul  or  any  other  apostle  had  anything 
to  do  with  it.  Does  this  destroy  its  canonicity  ? 

(c).  It  is  not  certain  that  Matthew  wrote  the  present 
gospel  of  Matthew.  A  large  number  of  the  best  evan- 
gelical critics  hold  that  the  real  Matthew  was  the  Ara- 
maic Logia  at  the  basis  of  the  gospel,  and  that  our  pres- 
ent Matthew  is  made  up  chiefly  by  the  use  of  the  origi- 
nal Matthew  and  the  gospel  of  Mark  by  a  later  evangel- 
ist. Does  the  canonicity  of  Matthew  depend  on  this 
question  ? 

(d}.  The  gospel  of  John,  after  a  long  and  severe  con- 
test, is  generally  acknowledged  by  critics  to  be  from  the 
hand  of  the  apostle.  It  is  most  probable  that  the  apos- 
tle John  wrote  it,  but  this  is  not  certain.  Is  a  Christian 
scholar  to  be  compelled  to  deny  its  canonicity  if  he 
doubts  whether  John  really  wrote  it? 

(e).  Is  the  inspiration  and  authority  of  the  Pentateuch 
dependent  upon  the  results  of  the  Higher  Criticism  ?  The 
consensus  of  criticism  is  that  it  is  an  anonymous  writing 
made  up  of  four  principal  earlier  histories,  which  have 
been  compacted  together,  and  that  the  Mosaic  material 
is  confined  to  the  original  sources  and  the  essential 
features  of  the  legislation.  Evangelical  critics  are  not 
forced  to  deny  the  inspiration  of  the  Pentateuch  because 
they  are  convinced  that  Moses  did  not  write  it  in  its 
present  form. 


36  SHIFTING. 

(/).  It  is  certain  that  a  large  proportion  of  the  Old 
Testament  is  anonymous, — from  unknown  authors.  Is 
it  safe  to  hold  a  theory  that  leaves  no  room  for  an 
anonymous  writing  in  the  canon  of  Scripture? 

(g).  It  is  agreed  by  most  critics  that  Ecclesiastes  is  a 
pseudonyme.  It  is  held  by  many  that  Daniel  and  Deu- 
teronomy are  also  pseudonymes.  Must  these  writings 
go  out  of  the  canon  on  that  account  ? 

(ti).  There  are  many  strong  reasons  against  the  au- 
thorship of  the  apocalypse  by  John  the  apostle,  and  the 
Pauline  authorship  of  the  pastoral  epistles.  There  are 
many  stronger  reasons,  in  my  opinion,  in  favor  of  the 
prevalent  traditional  theories.  But  the  canonicity  of 
these  writings  does  not  depend  upon  their  apostolic  au- 
thorship. 

It  is  evident,  if  the  elder  and  younger  Hodge  are  cor- 
rect in  their  theory  of  inspiration,  that  a  very  large 
portion  of  the  Bible  is  in  peril  from  the  Higher  Criticism, 
and  that  the  only  way  to  save  the  Bible  is  to  destroy  the 
"  higher  critics."  Doubtless  many  excellent  scholars  and 
pious  men  in  the  Protestant  churches  really  have  this 
opinion  ;  and  that  is  one  of  the  gravest  perils  of  the  pres- 
ent situation.  These  dogmaticians  are  responsible  for 
this  state  of 'things  by  the  error  they  have  made  in  mak- 
ing inspiration  and  canonicity  dependent  upon  authen- 
ticity. By  persisting  in  this  error  they  make  it  neces- 
sary that  critics  should  destroy  it,  for  "  the  Scriptures 
are  sufficiently  proved  to  be  God's  word  by  their  being 
wholly  to  God's  glory,  and  their  perfection,  and  power 
upon  consciences."  * 

We  regret  to  see  Dr.  Warfield  following  in  the  same 
path  of  error,  for  he  has  recently  said  : 


*  Herbert  Palmer's  Catechism,  Quest  31. 


WHITHER?  gf 

"  We  rest  our  acceptance  of  the  New  Testament  Scriptures  as 
authoritative  thus,  not  on  the  fact  that  they  are  the  product  of 
the  revelation-age  of  the  church,  for  so  are  many  other  books 
which  we  do  not  thus  accept ;  but  on  the  fact  that  God's  author- 
itative agents  in  founding  the  church  gave  them  as  authoritative 
to  the  church  which  they  founded.  This  mode  of  presentation 
excludes  the  common  objection  that  not  all  the  New  Testament 
books  were  written  by  apostles,  the  point  being  not  apostolic  * 
composition,  but  apostolic  gift;  and  it  pulls  up  by  the  roots  the 
even  commoner  objection  that  the  church  existed  before  the 
New  Testament,  the  point  being  rather  whether  the  church  ex- 
isted before  the  authority  of  the  apostles  which  they  have  em- 
bodied in  the  New  Testament.  By  this  line  of  remark  it  is  also 
clear  that  prophetic  and  apostolic  origin  is  the  very  essence  of 
the  authority  of  the  Scriptures."  * 

But  how  does  Dr.  Warfield  know  that  the  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  and  the  gospels  of  Mark  and  Luke  had  "  apos- 
tolic origin  "  and  "  apostolic  gift  "  ?  He  cannot  prove  it. 
He  cannot  make  it  so  certain  that  a  reasonable  man  is 
bound  to  accept  it  on  peril  of  his  faith.  If  this  is  the 
"very  essence  of  the  authority  of  the  Scripture,"  that 
essence  is  not  strong  enough  to  sustain  the  strain  of  criti- 
cism, and  to  bear  the  weight  of  a  world  demanding  infal- 
lible evidence  for  its  faith.  Dr.  Warfield  knows  well  that 
many  of  the  best  evangelical  critics  do  not  agree  with 
him  in  his  traditional  views  of  the  literary  origin  of  the 
New  Testament ;  and  yet  he  does  not  hesitate  to  risk 
the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  upon  the  soundness  of 
these  traditional  theories. 

The  Reformers  found  the  essence  of  the  authority  of 
the  Scriptures  in  the  Scriptures  themselves  and  not  in 
traditional  theories  about  them.  Hence  they  were  not 
anxious  about  human  authorship.  Luther  denied  the 
Apocalypse  to  John  and-  Ecclesiastes  to  Solomon.  He 


*  Presbyterian  Review ,  vol.  x.,  p.  506. 


88  SHIFTING. 

regarded  Jude  as  an  extract  from  Second  Peter.  He 
said :  "  What  matters  it  if  Moses  should  not  himself 
have  written  the  Pentateuch?"  He  thought  that  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews  was  written  by  a  disciple  of  the 
apostle  Paul,  who  was  a  learned  man,  and  made  the 
epistle  as  a  sort  of  composite  piece  in  which  there  are 
some  things  hard  to  be  reconciled  with  the  gospel. 
Calvin  denied  the  Pauline  authorship  of  the  epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  and  doubted  the  Petrine  authorship  of 
Second  Peter.  He  held  that  Ezra  or  some  one  else 
edited  the  Psalter.  He  regarded  Malachi  as  a  pseudonym 
for  Ezra.  The  great  Reformers  found  no  difficulty  in 
recognizing  anonymous  and  pseudonymous  writings  in 
the  canon  of  Scripture.* 

But  recent  teachers  of  theology  are  doubtless  better 
informed,  and  are  more  reliable  as  exponents  and  de- 
fenders of  the  faith.  So  many  think ;  but  most  Presby- 
terians and  Protestants  will  prefer  to  adhere  to  the 
broad,  catholic  and  scientific  principles  of  the  Reformers 
and  the  Great  Reformation.  They  think  that  the  West- 
minster divines  were  wiser  in  their  definitions  of  inspi- 
ration and  canonicity  than  the  founders  and  chiefs  of  a 
school  of  theology  that  is  less  than  a  century  old.  They 
see  that  the  faith  of  the  Church  as  defined  by  its  heroic 
leaders  and  founders,  as  set  forth  in  its  official  symbols, 
has  no  cruarrel  with  the  Higher  Criticism.  They  have 
long  since  discerned  that  those  who  are  crying  out 
against  the  Higher  Criticism  are  really  exposing  the 
perils  of  the  Traditional  theology,  which  is  threatened 
with  destruction  by  the  Higher  Criticism  ;  and  that  they 
are  showing  to  the  world  how  seriously  the  scholastic 
divines  have  compromised  the  faith  of  the  Reformation 


*  Briggs'  "  Biblical  Study,"  pp.  165  seq. 


WHITHER?  39 

and  the  doctrine  of  the  Westminster  symbols.  I  have 
elsewhere  said :  The  question  as  to  the  authenticity  of 
the  Bible  is  whether  God  is  its  author:  whether  it  is  in- 
spired. This  cannot  be  determined  by  the  Higher  Crit- 
icism in  any  way,  for  the  Higher  Criticism  has  only  to  do 
with  human  authorship,  and  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
divine  authorship,  which  is  determined  on  different  prin- 
ciples.* "  Who  is  the  author  of  those  Scriptures  ?  "  asks 
William  Gouge,  one  of  the  leading  Westminster  divines, 
in  his  Catechism.  He  answers  it  thus:  "The  Holy 
Spirit  of  God,  who  inspired  holy  men  to  write  them." 
Dr.  A.  F.  Mitchell  well  says : 

"  If  any  chapter  in  the  Confession  was  more  carefully  framed 
than  another,  it  was  this,  '  of  the  Holy  Scripture.'  It  formed  the 
subject  of  repeated  and  earnest  debate  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons as  well  as  in  the  Assembly ;  and  I  think  it  requires  only 
to  be  fairly  examined  to  make  it  appear  that  its  framers  were  so 
far  from  desiring  to  go  beyond  their  predecessors  in  rigour,  that 
they  were  at  more  special  pains  than  the  authors  of  any  other 
Confession — i.  To  avoid  mixing  up  the  question  of  the  canon- 
icity  of  particular  books  with  the  question  of  their  authorship, 
where  any  doubt  at  all  existed  on  the  latter  point ;  2.  To  leave 
open  all  reasonable  questions  as  to  the  mode  and  degree  of  in- 
spiration which  could  consistently  be  left  open  by  those  who 
accepted  the  Scriptures  as  the  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  duty ;  3. 
To  refrain  from  claiming  for  the  text  such  absolute  purity,  and 
for  the  Hebrew  vowel  points  such  antiquity,  as  was  claimed  in 
the  Swiss  Formula  Concordtae,  while  asserting  that  the  originals 
of  Scripture  are,  after  the  lapse  of  ages,  still  pure  and  perfect  for 
all  those  purposes  for  which  they  were  given  ;  4.  To  declare  that 
the  sense  of  Scripture  in  any  particular  place  is  not  manifold, 
but  one,  and  so  raise  an  earnest  protest  against  that  system  of 
spiritualizing  the  text  which  had  been  too  much  countenanced 
by  some  of  the  most  eminent  of  the  Fathers,  and  many  of  the 
best  of  the  mystics."  t 

*  "  Biblical  Study,"  p.  228. 

t  "  Minutes  of  the  Westm.  Assembly,"  Introd.,  p.  xlix. 


90  SHIFTING. 

We  have  taken  up  in  detail  the  four  different  depart- 
ures of  Modern  Orthodoxism  from  the  principle  of  the 
Scriptures,  as  defined  in  the  Westminster  standards 
and  the  creeds  of  the  Reformation.  We  have  shown 
how  unsound  and  perilous  these  departures  are  in  the 
present  situation  of  affairs.  If  any  one  wishes  to  ad- 
vance beyond  the  official  doctrine  of  the  Church,  in 
more  exact  definitions  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  he 
has  a  right  to  do  so.  If  he  find  any  comfort  in  verbal 
inspiration  and  the  inerrancy  of  the  Scriptures,  we  have 
no  desire  to  disturb  him,  provided  he  hold  these  errors 
as  private  opinions  and  do  not  seek  to  impose  them 
upon  others.  But  fidelity  to  the  truth  requires  that  we 
should  state  that  they  are  not  only  extra-confessional, 
but  that  they  are  contrary  to  truth  and  fact,  and  that 
they  are  broken  reeds  that  will  surely  fail  any  one  who 
leans  upon  them,  and  that  they  are  therefore  positively 
dangerous  to  the  faith  of  ministry  and  people. 

But  it  is  quite  different  with  those  who  depart  so  far 
as  to  base  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  upon  human 
authors  and  the  human  recognition  of  the  early  Church. 
These  are  errors  that  should  not  be  winked  at,  for  they 
are  contra-confessional ;  they  undermine  the  foundation 
upon  which  the  Confession  is  constructed.  They  de- 
stroy the  Reformation  doctrine  of  the  authority  of  the 
Scriptures.  They  change  the  base  of  Protestantism, 


CHAPTER  V. 

EXCESSES. 

DOGMATIC  THEOLOGY  has  been  busy  in  building  up 
elaborate  systems  of  doctrine  by  speculation.  Specu- 
lation is  legitimate  so  far  as  it  is  careful  in  its  lines  of 
development  and  true  in  its  aims.  There  can  be  no 
progress  in  theology  without  speculation.  Every  ad- 
vance in  theology  in  the  past  has  been  through  specu- 
lation. As  Martensen  wrote  to  Dorner  in  1868:  "Chris- 
tian speculative  theology  is  the  only  one  that  really  has 

a  future The  present  movement  in  theology  is 

no  period  in  theology,  but  only  a  transient  episode."  * 
But  speculation  is  liable  to  error  and  abuse.  There 
are  abundant  evidences  of  such  error  and  abuse  when 
we  compare  the  statements  of  the  dogmatic  divines 
with  the  Westminster  Confession.  And  the  abuse  is 
all  the  greater  in  those  theologians  who  use  specu- 
lation in  their  interpretations  of  Scripture  and  the  creeds, 
and  then  pretend  that  they  are  Biblical  and  confessional. 

We  shall  divide  the  Westminster  Confession  into  three 
parts,  using  it  as  a  provisional  test  of  orthodoxy,  and  a 
measure  to  determine  the  departures  in  different  direc- 
tions from  the  Reformed  faith.  Each  part  has  eleven 
chapters.  The  Traditional  orthodoxy  has  been  chiefly 
engaged  in  the  elaboration  of  the  first  eleven  chapters. 

*  "  Briefwechsel  zwischen,  H.  L.  Martensen  und  I.  A.  Dorner,"  ii.  p.  67, 
Berlin,  1888. 

(91) 


92  EXCESSES. 

Here  is  the  field  of  excessive  definition,  unbounded 
speculation  and  contest.  We  have  already  considered 
the  first  chapter  and  its  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Scripture, 
and  have  seen  that  dogmatic  divines  have  gone  so  far  in 
this  doctrine  as  to  change  the  base  of  the  Reformation. 
We  shall  now  consider  the  remaining  ten  chapters. 
These  chapters  treat : 

II.  Of  God,  and  of  the  Holy  Trinity. 

III.  Of  God's  Eternal  Decree. 

IV.  Of  Creation. 
V.  Of  Providence. 

VI.  Of  the  Fall  of  Man,  of  Sin,  and  of  the  punishment  thereof. 
VII.  Of  God's  Covenant  with  Man. 
VIII.  Of  Christ  the  Mediator. 
IX.  Of  Free  Will. 
X.  Of  Effectual  Calling. 
XI.  Of  Justification. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  the  "  Systematic  Theology  "  of 
Dr.  Charles  Hodge  devotes  1,592  pages  of  its  three  vol- 
umes to  a  discussion  of  the  matters  contained  in  the 
first  eleven  chapters  of  the  Confession,  leaving  668  pages 
for  the  remaining  twenty-two  chapters.  Dr.  Shedd,  in 
his  "  Dogmatic  Theology,"  gives  1,098  pages  to  the  doc- 
trines of  these  eleven  chapters,  and  only  202  pages  to 
the  doctrines  of  the  remaining  two-thirds  of  the  Con 
fession.  Other  works  on  Dogmatic  Theology  show 
similar  methods  and  results.  Here  is  the  field  of  excess- 
ive theological  speculation,  where  the  private  opinions 
of  Christian  scholars  have  so  elaborated  the  statements 
of  the  Westminster  symbols  that  they  have  put  them  in 
improper  proportions  and  in  a  false  light,  in  the  minds 
of  large  numbers  of  the  ministry.  We  shall  also  find  not 
a  few  examples  in  which  these  divines  fail  to  rise  to  the 
heights  of  the  Westminster  theology.  We  shall  make 
this  clear  by  several  examples. 


WHITHER?  93 

THE  LIVING  GOD. 

The  Westminster  Confession  begins  its  doctrine  of  God 
with  the  statement :  "  There  is  but  one  only  living  and 
true  God."*  The  doctrine  of  the  living  God  is  fortified 
by  references  to  Scripture.  "Ye  turned  to  God  from 
idols,  to  serve  the  living  and  true  God."  f  "  But  the 
Lord  is  the  true  God ;  he  is  the  living  God  and  an 
everlasting  King."  $  This  doctrine  of  the  living  God 
is  one  of  the  most  prominent  features  of  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures.  And  yet  the  dogmatic  divines 
have  ignored  it.  This  is  very  striking  in  Dr.  A.  A. 
Hodge's  exposition  of  this  section  of  the  Confession. 
He  says :  "  This  affirmation  includes  two  proposi- 
tions :  (a.)  There  is  but  one  God.  (b.)  This  one  God 
is  an  absolute  unit,  incapable  of  division."  §  The  doc- 
trine of  the  living  God  is  passed  over  altogether.  This 
neglect  of  the  doctrine  of  the  living  God  has  resulted 
in  making  the  God  of  most  dogmaticians  an  abstraction, 
a  bundle  of  attributes,  and  in  external  and  mechanical 
conceptions  of  His  decrees  and  their  execution.  The 
immutability  of  God  has  been  elaborated  at  the  expense 
of  His  activity,  His  sovereignty  at  the  cost  of  His  deity. 
As  I  have  said  elsewhere  :  "  There  can  be  little  doubt 
that  the  substitution  of  '  Lord  '  for  Jahveh  in  the  transla- 
tion of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  and  in  the  Jewish  Rabbin- 
ical Theology,  has  been  associated  with  an  undue  stress 
upon  the  sovereignty  of  God.  The  Old  Testament  reve- 
lation in  its  use  of  Jahveh  emphasized  rather  the  ac- 
tivity of  the  ever  living  personal  God  of  revelation. 
The  doctrine  of  God  needs  to  be  enriched  at  the  present 


*  II.  i.  1 1  Thess.  i.  9.  t  Jer.  x.  10. 

§  "  Commentary  on  the  Confession  of  Faith,"  p.  71,  Presbyterian  Board  of 
Publication. 


Q4-  EXCESSES. 

time  by  the  enthronement  of  the  idea  of  the  living  God 
to  its  supreme  place  in  Biblical  theology,  and  the  de- 
thronement of  the  idea  of  divine  sovereignty  from  its 
usurped  position  in  dogmatic  theology."  *  The  West- 
minster divines  state  this  doctrine  in  its  true  funda- 
mental position,  but  the  later  dogmaticians  have  changed 
the  Westminster  doctrine.  Dr.  Isaac  Dorner  rendered 
an  inestimable  service  to  the  Church  in  reasserting  the 
doctrine  of  the  living  God,  in  his  discussion  of  the 
unchangeableness  of  God.f  But  few  American  divines 
have  paid  any  attention  to  it. 

THE   LOVE   OF  GOD. 

It  is  sometimes  complained  that  the  Westminster 
Confession  does  not  give  sufficient  importance  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  divine  Love.  If  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge's  ex- 
position of  the  attributes  of  God  be  true,  this  charge 
is  just,  for  he  takes  the  position  that  the  justice  of  God 
"is  not  purely  optional  with  him,"  but  that  the  grace  of 
God  "  is  essentially  purely  optional  with  God."  We  give 
Dr.  Hodge's  views  in  his  own  words  : 

"  God  is  no  more  able  to  relax  the  moral  perfection  of  his 
law,  or  to  remit  the  penalty  as  an  act  of  sovereign  prerogative, 
than  he  is  able  to  lie  or  to  deny  himself.  Therefore  he  cannot 
forgive  sin  in  any  case.  The  sinner  may  be  forgiven,  but  the 
sin  must  be  punished,  either  in  the  person  of  the  sinner  or  of  his 
substitute.  Therefore,  the  vicarious  suffering  of  the  penalty  by 
Christ  in  the  stead  of  his  people,  was  an  absolute  NECESSITY  to 

the  end  of  their  salvation Now  while  the  justice  of  God 

is  a  constitutional  perfection  of  his  nature,  lying  back  of  and 
determining  his  will,  and  necessitating  the  punishment  of  sin 
in  every  case,  and  while  his  benevolence  is  a  like  constitutional 

*  Presbyterian  Review,  vol.  vi.,  p.  527. 

t  "Jahrb.  fQr  deutsche  Theologie,"  1856-7,  and  also  Corner's  "Gesammelte 
Scliriften,"  1883,  pp.  188  seg. 


WHITHEK?  95 

perfection,  determining  him  to  seek  the  happiness  and  excel- 
lence of  his  creatures  as  far  as  is  consistent  with  the  great  ends 
to  which  the  creation  is  destined,  it  is,  on  the  other  hand,  self- 
evident  that  'grace'  is  essentially  purely  optional  with  God. 
Justice,  if  it  be  justice,  must  be  executed.  But  grace,  that  it 
may  be  grace,  is  a  free  and  purely  optional  favour,  determined 
solely  by  the  free  choice  of  the  sovereign."  * 

This  Dr.  Hodge  gives  forth  as  Presbyterian  doctrine. 
This  is  Dr.  Hodge's  private  opinion,  in  which  he  is  sus- 
tained by  some  dogmaticians,  but  it  is  not  Presbyterian 
doctrine ;  for  Presbyterian  doctrine  is  denned  by  the 
Westminster  standards.  The  Confession  states  that 
God  is  "  most  free."  How  can  He  be  most  free  if  He 
be  the  slave  of  His  justice  ?  The  Westminster  Confes- 
sion does  not  give  the  precedence  to  the  divine  justice 
among  the  attributes  of  God.  It  does  not  neglect  the 
divine  mercy.  This  is  clear  from  the  following  state- 
ment, where  if  anything  the  divine  love  is  magnified 
above  justice : 

"  Most  loving,  gracious,  merciful,  long-suffering,  abundant  in 
goodness  and  truth,  forgiving  iniquity,  transgression,  and  sin ; 
the  rewarder  of  them  that  diligently  seek  Him  ;  and  withal  most 
just  and  terrible  in  His  judgments  ;  hating  all  sin,  and  who  will 
by  no  means  clear  the  guilty."  t 

There  is  no  neglect  of  the  divine  love  here.  The 
statement,  "  most  loving,"  refers  to  the  proof-text, 4<  God 
is  love,"  ^  and  the  proof-texts  for  the  rest  of  the  defini- 
tion are  the  classic  passages  where  the  divine  mercy  is 
magnified.§  Here  the  doctrine  of  forgiveness  of  sin  is 
set  forth  in  all  its  grandeur  as  the  outflow  of  the  divine 
love,  grace,  and  mercy.  Dr.  Hodge  says  that  God  "  can- 

*  A.  A.  Hodge,  "  Presbyterian  Doctrine,"  pp.  15,  16,  Presbyterian  Board  of 
Publication. 

t  "  Westminster  Confession,"  ii.  i.  \  i  John  iv.  8. 

§  Ex.  xxxiv.  6-7  ;  and,  also,  Neh.  ix.  32,  33. 


96  EXCESSES. 

not  forgive  sin  in  any  case."  But  these  Scriptures  and 
others  teach  that  it  is  of  God's  very  nature  to  forgive 
sin.  The  younger  Hodge  here  follows  the  elder  Hodge, 
who,  in  his  great  work  on  "  Systematic  Theology,"  finds 
little  place  for  "  the  forgiveness  of  sin." 

The  doctrine  of  the  forgiveness  of  sin  is  written  all 
over  the  Scriptures.  It  is  one  of  the  earliest  articles  of 
the  Apostles'  Creed.  It  is  retained  in  the  Westminster 
Confession.  But  it  has  been  banished  by  these  modern 
divines  and  other  dogmaticians  from  their  system.  The 
saintly  Rutherford  shows  how  far  the  scholastic  divines 
differ  from  the  Westminster  orthodoxy : 

"  Common  sense  will  say  no  more  followeth,  but  goodness  and 
bounty  intrinsecall  are  essentiall  to  God,  and  these  attributes  are 
essentiall  to  him,  and  were  from  eternity  in  him,  and  are  his 
good  and  bountiful  nature ;  though  not  either  man,  angel,  or 
anything  else  had  been  created,  but  while  he  doth  actually  ex- 
tend his  goodnesse ;  ergo,  this  actual  extension  of  goodnesse  is 
not  essentiall  to  God,  but  free.  Though  Adam  apprehended  God 
would  punish  his  eating  of  the  forbidden  tree ;  yet  if  he  appre- 
hended that  he  should  not  be  God,  if  he  did  not  punish  it,  his 
apprehension  was  erroneous.  And  this  only  follows  that  there  is 
an  intrinsicall  and  internall  justice  in  God,  naturall  and  essentiall 
in  God,  but  so  that  the  outgoings  of  his  justice,  the  egressions 
are  most  free."  * 

"  It  must  be  a  carnall  conception  and  a  new  dream,  that  God  by 
necessity  of  nature,  loves  himself  as  clothed  with  revenging 
justice,  or  as  just,  and  his  glory  of  revenging  justice,  but  that 
God  loves  himself  as  mercifull  and  ready  to  forgive,  or  his  own 
glory  of  pardoning-mercie  freely,  and  by  no  necessity  of  na- 
ture." t 

Shakespeare  gives  a  true  and  accurate  representation 
of  the  Biblical  and  confessional  doctrine  of  justice  and 
mercy  which  is  so  lodged  in  the  heart  of  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  race  that  no  dogmaticians  can  ever  get  it  out : 

*  Rutherford,  "  Covenant  of  Grace,"  1655,  p.  28.  t  /.  c.,  p.  28. 


WHITHER?  gf 

"  The  quality  of  mercy  is  not  strain'd, — 
It  droppeth  as  the  gentle  rain  from  heaven 
Upon  the  place  beneath  :  it  is  twice  bless'd, — 
It  blesseth  him  that  gives,  and  him  that  takes  : 
"Tis  mightiest  in  the  mightiest ;  it  becomes 
The  throned  monarch  better  than  his  crown ; 
His  sceptre  shows  the  force  of  temporal  power, 
The  attribute  to  awe  and  majesty, 
Wherein  doth  sit  the  dread  and  fear  of  kings. 
But  mercy  is  above  the  sceptred  sway, — 
It  is  enthroned  in  the  heart  of  kings, 
It  is  an  attribute  to  God  himself  ; 
And  earthly  power  doth  then  shew  likest  God's 
When  mercy  seasons  justice. " 

THE   DIVINE   DECREE. 

The  most  difficult  doctrine  in  the  Westminster  stand- 
ards is  the  doctrine  of  the  "  divine  decree."  *  There 
can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Westminster  divines  were 
Calvinists,  that  they  held  in  the  main  to  the  Canons  of 
Dort,  and  that  they  excluded  Arminians  and  semi- 
Arminians  from  orthodoxy.  The  definitions  of  the 
Westminster  standards  were  made  with  this  end  in  view. 
They  are  sharp,  hard,  polemical,  and  exclusive ;  and,  at 
the  same  time,  apologetic,  defensive,  and  guarding  them- 
selves from  objections  at  every  point.  I  do  not  know 
where  any  such  careful  and  admirable  definitions  can  be 
found.  At  the  same  time  it  is  my  opinion  that  in  this 
respect  the  Westminster  divines  went  too  far  in  their 
polemics.  They  sharpened  their  definitions  into  swords 
and  spears  that  are  as  dangerous  in  the  hands  of  unskill- 
ful Calvinists  as  they  are  to  their  Arminian  foes.  It  is 
not  surprising  that  these  definitions  have  ever  been  re- 
garded as  hard  and  offensive,  and  that  they  have  kept 
multitudes  from  uniting  with  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

*  Chap.  iii. 


98  EXCESSES. 

The  present  movement  for  revision  at  this  point  has 
many  arguments  in  its  favor.  Dr.  Howard  Crosby  un- 
doubtedly expresses  the  views  of  many  Presbyterian 
ministers  and  laymen  when  he  says : 

"Surely  from  these  Scriptures  we  can  safely  say  that  any 
scheme  of  theology  that  makes  God  partial,  resolving  to  furnish 
his  grace  only  to  some  of  those  whom  he  invites,  and  wilfully 
excluding  others  from  all  participation  in  it,  is  an  unscriptural 
scheme,  whatever  may  be  its  philosophical  merits."  * 

The  antithesis  to  Dr.  Crosby  we  find  in  Dr.  A.  A. 
Hodge's  exposition  of  the  Confession  : 

"That  as  God  has  sovereignly  destinated  certain  persons, 
called  the  elect,  through  grace  to  salvation,  so  he  has  sover- 
eignly decreed  to  withhold  his  grace  from  the  rest ;  and  that 
this  withholding  rests  upon  the  unsearchable  counsel  of  his 
own  will,  and  is  for  the  glory  of  his  sovereign  power."  t 

It  ought  to  be  said,  however,  in  defense  of  the  West- 
minster definitions  (a)  that  the  decree  is  not  an  arbitrary 
decree.  The  Westminster  divines  do  not  make  this  mis- 
take of  modern  divines  in  building  on  the  absolute  sov- 
ereignty of  God.  "  God  from  all  eternity  did,  by  the 
most  wise  and  holy  counsel  of  His  own  will,  freely  and 
unchangeably  ordain  whatsoever  comes  to  pass."  ^  Wis- 
dom and  holiness  are  the  qualities  of  that  counsel  or 
plan  of  God  out  of  which  the  decrees  issue.  God  is  a 
sovereign,  but  He  is  a  most  wise  one  and  a  most  holy 
one.  God  is  absolute  in  His  sovereignty  because  He  is 
God,  but  His  sovereignty  is  the  sovereignty  not  merely 
of  a  monarch,  but  of  a  Creator,  a  Father,  and,  above  all, 
of  the  infinitely  holy  and  loving  God.  The  attribute  of 
Love  is  wrapped  up  in  every  decree,  and  Holiness  is  at 


*  "  Responsibility  before  the  Gospel,"  p.  4. 

t  "  Commentary  on  the  Confession  of  Faith,"  pp.  107-8.  J  III.  i. 


WHITHER?  99 

the  root  of  every  divine  act.  These  qualifications  of  the 
decree  in  the  Westminster  standards  are  too  often  over- 
looked. 

(b).  God's  decrees  are  not  violent  and  destructive  of 
the  liberty  and  moral  nature  of  His  creatures.  The  de- 
crees are  qualified  by  the  statement,  "  Yet  so  as  thereby 
neither  is  God  the  author  of  sin  ;  nor  is  violence  offered 
to  the  will  of  the  creatures,  nor  is  the  liberty  or  contin- 
gency of  second  causes  taken  away,  but  rather  estab- 
lished." I  do  not  see  how  it  is  possible  to  improve  this 
statement. 

But  it  would  have  been  better  for  us  if  the  Westmin- 
ster divines  had  stopped  with  sections  I,  5,  6,  8,  and 
that  sections  2,  3,  4,  7  had  never  been  framed.  I  person- 
ally do  not  object  to  them,  because  they  are  all  wrapped 
up  in  the  first  section  ;  they  are  all  qualified  by  its  state- 
ments, and  are  not  to  be  interpreted  as  if  they  stood 
apart.  At  the  same  time  the  history  of  Presbyterianism 
shows  that  they  have  ever  been  perverted  by  ultra-Cal- 
vinists  as  well  as  by  Arminians,  and  that  they  have  been 
stumbling-blocks  in  the  way  of  the  ignorant. 

(c).  Arminian  doctrine  is  excluded  by  the  statement, 
"  Although  God  knows  whatsoever  may,  or  can  come  to 
pass  upon  all  supposed  conditions,  yet  hath  He  not  de- 
creed anything  because  He  foresaw  it  as  future,  or  as 
that  which  would  come  to  pass  upon  such  conditions."  * 
But  this  does  not  justify  the  dogmatic  divines  in  going 
over  to  the  other  extreme  and  stating,  "  Presbyterians 
hold  that  God  eternally  foreknows  all  events  that  come 
to  pass  as  certainly  future,  because  he  has  predeter- 
mined them  to  be  so."  f  This  may  be  the  doctrine  of 
some  Presbyterian  dogmaticians,  but  it  is  not  the  doc- 


*  III.  2.  t  A.  A.  Hodge,  "  Presbyterian  Doctrine,"  p.  n. 


100  EXCESSES. 

trine  of  the  Westminster  symbols.  The  foreknowledge 
of  God  and  the  decree  of  God  are  not  to  be  ranged  either 
in  chronological  or  logical  sequence.  They  are  united  in 
the  "  most  wise  and  holy  counsel  of  His  own  will."  As 
Dr.  Dabney  well  says :  "  God's  decree  has  no  succession  ; 
and  to  Him  no  successive  order  of  parts,  because  it  is  a 
contemporaneous  unit  comprehended  altogether  by  one 
infinite  intuition."  * 

(e).  The  ground  of  the  divine  election  is  "  His  mere 
free  grace  and  love,"  and  it  is  "all  to  the  praise  of  His 
glorious  grace."  An  election  of  love,  an  election  of  di- 
vine grace  is  not  an  election  at  which  any  man  should 
stumble.  For  what  more  comprehensive  plan  of  re- 
demption could  be  devised  than  a  redemption  that  is 
born  of  the  love  of  God  and  is  carried  on  in  all  its  pro- 
cesses by  divine  grace  ?  For  who  can  limit  the  love  of 
God  or  measure  His  infinite  grace? 

Salvation  by  the  divine  grace  alone  is  the  fundamen- 
tal principle  of  the  Reformed  Churches.  Those  dogma- 
ticians  who  have  substituted  the  "  good  pleasure  of  His 
will,"  meaning  thereby  "  absolute  sovereignty,"  have 
changed  the  base  of  the  Reformed  doctrine,  and  have 
gone  very  far  in  the  direction  of  committing  the  well- 
nigh  unpardonable  sin  of  limiting  the  grace  of  God.  It 
is  not  a  Calvinistic  doctrine  that  the  great  mass  of  man- 
kind will  be  reprobated,  passed  by,  and  lost  in  hell  for- 
ever. Calvinism,  rather,- by  its  emphasis  of  the  wonder- 
ful richness,  fulness,  and  freeness  of  the  divine  grace, 
raises  our  expectations  to  the  point  that  comparatively 
few  will  be  lost.  It  is  certain  that  the  love  of  God  in- 
finitely surpasses  the  love  of  all  mankind ;  and  that 
love  so  displayed  itself  in  the  unspeakable  gift  of  His 


*  '« Theology,"  p.  333. 


WHITHER?  101 

only  begotten  Son  for  the  redemption  of  the  world,  that 
the  world  as  a  world  will  be  saved,  and  those  ultimately 
lost  will  be  fewer  than  any  one  of  us  can  suppose. 

Presbyterianism  is  not  responsible  for  the  abuse  of  the 
doctrine  of  election  and  reprobation.  The  burden  of 
that  sin  rests  on  the  dogmaticians  more  than  upon  the 
Confession.  Their  limitation  of  the  divine  grace  to  a 
few  is  not  sustained  by  the  Confession  or  by  the  Scrip- 
tures. It  is  rather  an  inheritance  from  the  mediaeval 
scholasticism,  and  is  based  upon  the  apocalypse  of  Ezra. 
Dr.  Mitchell  has  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
Westminster  divines  did  not  build  their  statements  on 
the  Synod  of  Dort,  but  on  the  Irish  Articles : 

"  But  it  is  remarkable  that,  though  the  Assembly  met  after  the 
Synod  of  Dort,  and  had  for  its  president  one  whose  opinions  on 
these  mysterious  subjects  were  almost  as  pronounced  as  those  of 
Gomarus  himself,  it  fell  back  not  on  the  decrees  of  that  Synod, 
but  on  the  Articles  of  the  Irish  Church,  which  had  been  drawn 
up  before  the  Synod  of  Dort  was  summoned,  or  the  controversies 
its  decrees  occasioned  had  waxed  so  fierce.  The  debates  x>f  the 
Assembly  clearly  show  that  its  members  did  not  wish  to  xleter- 
mine  several  particulars  decided  by  the  Synod  of  Dort,  far  less 
to  determine  them  more  rigidly  than  it  had  done.  They  even 
intentionally  left  open  one  point  which  the  Irish  divines  thought 
fit  to  determine.  They  spoke  indifferently  of  the  '  decree '  and 
of  the  '  decrees '  of  God,  while  the  Irish  divines  speak  of  only  one 
and  '  the  same  decree ';  and  from  the  notes  of  their  debates  given 
below,  it  will  be  seen  that  this  was  done  because  all  were  not 
agreed  upon  the  point,  and  in  order  that  every  one  might  enjoy 
his  own  sense  ! "  * 

The  debate  here  referred  to  is  so  important  that  we 
give  an  extract  from  it  in  order  to  show  that  the  West- 
minster Confession  is  not  so  scholastic  in  its  definitions 
as  some  recent  writers  have  supposed : 


*  "  Minutes  of  Westminster  Assembly,"  Dr.  Mitchell,  Introd.,  pp.  liv.-v. 


102  EXCESSES. 

"  Ordered. — Proceed  in  the  debate  about  permission  of  man's 
fall ;  about  •  the  same  decree.' 

"Mr.  Rutherford.— 

"Mr.  Seaman. — If  those  words  '  in  the  same  decree '  be  left 
out,  will  involve  us  in  a  great  debate. 

"Mr.  Rutherford. — All  agree  in  this,  that  God  decrees  the  end 

and  means,  but  whether  in  one  or  more  decrees  is  not Say 

God  also  hath  decreed It  is  very  probable  but  one  decree, 

but  whether  fit  to  express  it  in  a  Confession  of  Faith 

"Mr.  Seaman. — 

"Mr.  Rutherford.  —If  there  can  be  any  argument  to  prove  a 
necessity  of  one  and  the  same  decree,  we  should  be  glad  to  hear  it. 

"Mr.  Whitakers. — If  you  take  the  same  decree  in  reference  to 
time,  they  are  all  simul  and  semel ;  in  eterno  there  is  not  prius 
and  posterius. 

"Dr.  Gouge. — I  do  not  see  how  the  leaving  out  of  those  words 
will  cross  that  we  aim  at ;  I  think  it  will  go  on  roundly  without  it. 

"Mr.  IVhitakers. — Our  conceptions  are  very  various  about  the 
decrees,  but  I  know  not  why  we  should  not  say  it. 

"Mr.  Seaman.— All  the  odious  doctrine  of  Arminians  is  from 
their  distinguishing  of  the  decrees,  but  our  divines  say  they  are 
one  and  the  same  decree. 

"Mr.  Gtllespie. — When  that  word  is  left  out,  is  it  not  a  truth, 
and  <=o  every  one  may  enjoy  his  own  sense. 

"Mr.  Reynolds. — Let  not  us  put  in  disputes  and  scholastical 
things  into  a  Confession  of  Faith  ;  I  think  they  are  different  de- 
crees in  our  manner  of  conceptions. 

"Mr.  Seaman. — You  know  how  great  a  censure  the  Remon- 
strants lie  under  for  making  two  decrees  concerning  election,  and 
will  it  not  be  more  concerning  the  end  and  means? 

"Mr.  Calamy. — That  it  may  be  a  truth,  I  think  in  our  Prolocu- 
tor's book  he  gives  a  great  deal  of  reason  for  it;  but  why  should 
we  put  it  in  a  Confession  of  Faith  ?  "  * 

Reynolds,  as  the  result  of  this  debate,  proposed  the 
following  statement,  which  we  place  in  parallelism  with 
the  Westminster  definition,  in  order  to  show  the  final 
result : 


"  Minutes  of  Westminster  Assembly,"  p.  150. 


WHITHER  ? 


103 


MR.   REYNOLDS. 


CONFESSION. 


"  As  God  hath  appointed  the 
elect  unto  glory,  so  hath  He  by 
the  same  eternal  and  most  free 
purpose  of  His  will  foreordain- 
ed all  the  means  thereunto, 
which  He  in  His  counsel  is 
pleased  to  appoint  for  the  exe- 
cuting of  that  decree ;  where- 
fore they  who  are  endowed  with 
so  excellent  a  benefit,  being 
fallen  in  Adam,  are  called  in 
according  to  God's  purpose."  * 


"  As  God  hath  appointed  the 
elect  unto  glory,  so  hath  He,  by 
the  eternal  and  most  free  pur- 
pose of  His  will,  foreordained  all 
the  means  thereunto.  Where- 
fore they  who  are  elected,  being 
fallen  in  Adam,  are  redeemed  by 
Christ,  are  effectually  called  un- 
to faith  in  Christ,  by  His  Spirit 
working  in  due  season,  are  jus- 
tified, adopted,  sanctified,  and 
kept  by  His  power  through 
faith  unto  salvation. "t 


The  Westminster  divines  debated  long  and  keenly  the 
doctrine  of  the  redemption  of  the  elect  only ;  and  the 
final  result  of  that  debate,  in  the  definition  of  the  Con- 
fession on  reprobation,  was  such  that  Calamy,  Marshall, 
Vines,  Seaman,  Arrowsmith,  Harris,  and  many  others  who 
advocated  the  doctrine  of  Davenant  and  Amyraut,  could 
subscribe  to  them.  These  held,  in  the  words  of  Calamy : 

"  I  am  far  from  universal  redemption  in  the  Arminian  sense ; 
but  that  that  I  hold  is  in  the  sense  of  our  divines  in  the  Synod 
of  Dort,  that  Christ  did  pay  a  price  for  all, — absolute  intention 
for  the  elect,  conditional  intention  for  the  reprobate  in  case  they 
do  believe, — that  all  men  should  be  salvabiles,  non  obstante  lapsu 
Adami,  ....  that  Jesus  Christ  did  not  only  die  sufficiently  for 
all,  but  God  did  intend,  in  giving  of  Christ,  and  Christ  in  giving 
Himself,  did  intend  to  put  all  men  in  a  state  of  salvation  in  case 
they  do  believe."  \ 


*  "  Minutes  of  Westminster  Assembly,"  Dr.  Mitchell,  p.  152. 
t  "Confession  of  Faith,"  Chap.  III.,  Sec.  vi. 
J  "  Minutes  of  Westminster  Assembly,"  p.  152. 


104:  EXCESSES. 

A  Westminster  divine,  and  a  teacher  of  Systematic 
Theology  at  Cam-bridge,  makes  the  following  state- 
ment : 

"  I  desire  to  have  it  punctually  observed  that  the  vessels  of 
wrath  are  only  said  to  be  fitted  to  destruction,  without  naming 
by  whom,  God,  Satan,  or  themselves ;  whereas  on  the  other  side, 
God  himself  is  expressly  said  to  have  prepared  his  chosen  vessels 
of  mercy  unto  glory.  Which  was  purposely  done  (as  I  humbly 
conceive)  to  intimate  a  remarkable  difference  between  election 
and  preterition ;  in  that  election  is  a  proper  cause  not  only  of 
salvation  itself,  but  of  all  the  graces  which  have  any  causal  tend- 
ency thereunto ;  and  therefore  God  is  said  to  prepare  his  elect 
to  glory :  Whereas  negative  reprobation  is  no  proper  cause,  either 
of  damnation  itself,  or  of  the  sin  that  bringeth  it,  but  an  ante- 
cedent only ;  wherefore  the  non-elect  are  indeed  said  to  be  fitted 
to  that  destruction  which  their  sins  in  the  conclusion  bring  upon 
them,  but  not  by  God.  I  call  it  a  remarkable  difference,  because 
where  it  is  once  rightly  apprehended  and  truly  beleeved,  it  suf- 
ficeth  to  stop  the  mouth  of  one  of  those  greatest  calumnies  and 
odiums  which  are  usually  cast  upon  our  doctrine  of  predestina- 
tion, viz.,  that  God  made  sundry  of  his  creatures  on  purpose  to 
damn  them :  a  thing  which  the  rhetoric  of  our  adversaries  is 
wont  to  blow  up  to  the  highest  pitch  of  aggravation.  But  it  is 
soon  blown  away  by  such  as  can  tell  them,  in  the  words  of  the 
excellent  Dr.  Davenant,  '  It  is  true  that  the  elect  are  severally 
created  to  the  end  and  intent  that  they  may  be  glorified,  to- 
gether with  their  head  Christ  Jesus :  But  for  the  non-elect  we 
cannot  truly  say  that  they  are  created  to  the  end  that  they  may  be 

tormented  with  the  Devil  and  his  Angels No  man  is  created 

by  God  with  a  nature  and  quality  fitting  him  to  damnation.  Yea 
neither  in  the  state  of  his  innocency,  nor  in  the  state  of  the  fall 
and  his  corruption,  doth  he  receive  anything  from  God  which  is 
a  proper  and  fit  means  of  bringing  him  to  his  damnation.'  And 
therefore  damnation  is  not  the  end  of  any  man's  creation."* 


"John  Arrowsmith's  "  Chain  of  Principles,"  pp.  335  sef.,  1659. 


WHITHER  ?  105 

CREATION. 

The  doctrine  of  creation  has  greatly  changed  since 
the  Confession  was  composed.  All  the  profound  dis- 
coveries of  modern  science  in  geology,  astronomy,  chem- 
istry, biology,  and  archaeology,  have  opened  up  new 
problems  for  the  doctrine  of  creation  that  were  not  in 
the  minds  of  the  Westminster  divines.  Accordingly 
there  are  many  different  views  on  this  subject  now  ex- 
isting in  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Confession  is  very  simple : 

"  It  pleased  God  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  for  the 
manifestation  of  the  glory  of  His  eternal  power,  wisdom,  and 
goodness,  in  the  beginning,  to  create,  or  make  of  nothing  the 
world,  and  all  things  therein,  whether  visible  or  invisible,  in  the 
space  of  six  days,  and  all  very  good."  * 

Modern  science  takes  exception  to  the  "  six  days " 
and  "  make  of  nothing"  in  their  connections  in  this  def- 
inition and  in  their  historical  interpretation. 

Modern  science  has  made  a  great  change  in  the  atti- 
tude of  the  Church  to  these  questions.  There  is  no 
longer  agreement  as  to  the  six  days  of  creation,  and 
there  are  many  who  deny  separate  creations  out  of  noth- 
ing. The  doctrine  of  development  has  the  field,  and  not 
a  few  Presbyterian  ministers  have  committed  themselves 
to  it.  There  are  few  who  believe  that  the  world  was 
created  in  six  days  of  twenty-four  hours.  The  vast 
majority  of  our  ministers — yes,  we  may  say  all  scholars 
— recognize  that  the  creation  of  the  heavens  and  the 
earth  took  long  periods  of  time. 

There  is  great  difference  of  opinion  among  Biblical 
scholars  whether  the  six  days  of  the  first  chapter  of 

*  iv.  i. 


106  EXCESSES. 

Genesis  can  mean  any  more  than  six  days  of  twenty- 
four  hours.  But  even  if  these  six  days  are  six  periods 
of  time,  the  first  day's  work  begins  with  the  creation  of 
light,  and  seems  to  presuppose  the  primitive  chaos  which 
must  then  have  been  produced  before  the  six  days'  work 
began.  Some  put  the  vast  periods  of  astronomy  and 
geology  in  this  introductory  time.  But  the  Confession 
leaves  no  room  for  this  opinion,  inasmuch  as  it  states 
that  the  entire  work  of  creation  took  place  in  the  six 
days. 

The  doctrine  of  development  does  not  recognize  crea- 
tion out  of  nothing,  except  so  far  as  the  primitive  germs 
are  concerned,  prior  to  all  forms  of  life  and  matter  men- 
tioned in  the  Biblical  narrative.  It  is  now  conceded  by 
many  Biblical  scholars  that  the  Old  Testament  does  not 
teach  the  doctrine  of  creation  out  of  nothing,  and  that 
the  Westminster  divines  misinterpreted  the  first  chapter 
of  Genesis  when  they  found  that  doctrine  there. 

Science  is  not  certain  in  its  history  of  the  development 
of  the  animal  and  vegetable  kingdoms.  It  is  not  easy 
to  reconcile  the  present  scientific  theories  with  the  poem 
of  the  creation  in  its  order  of  the  creation.  It  is  not 
clear  whether  development  is  unbroken  from  the  begin- 
ning, whether  there  were  many  stages  or  crises,  or 
whether  there  was  need  of  creative  energy  at  several  dif- 
ferent stages  in  the  development. 

It  is  impossible  at  present  to  hold  Presbyterian  min- 
isters and  professors  to  the  exact  statements  of  this 
Westminster  definition. 

The  Southern  Presbyterian  Church  has  recently 
committed  folly  in  excluding  one  of  its  ablest  divines 
from  his  professorship  in  a  theological  seminary  for 
teaching  the  doctrine  of  the  development  of  Adam's 
body  out  of  organic  matter,  instead  of  the  usual  theory 


WHITHER?  107 

of  its  immediate  divine  organization  out  of  inorganic 
matter,  clay  or  dust. 

There  is  no  consensus  in  the  Church  at  present  in  the 
doctrine  of  creation.  The  most  that  we  could  agree 
upon  would  be  that  God  created  all  things,  and  that 
ultimately  there  was  creation  out  of  nothing. 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  MAN. 

The  Westminster  Standards  are  not  so  rich  and  full 
in  their  anthropology  as  in  their  doctrine  of  God  and  their 
doctrine  of  redemption.  A  great  difference  of  opinion 
has  prevailed  in  Presbyterian  circles  in  this  field,  as  any 
one  can  see  who  will  compare  the  system  of  theology 
of  Dr.  Hodge  with  the  system  of  theology  of  Dr.  Shedd, 
and  these  with  current  opinions  in  the  Church. 

There  is  no  agreement  as  to  the  original  righteous- 
ness in  which  our  first  parents  lived  in  paradise.  The 
Confession  represents  that  our  first  parents  were  "  en- 
dued with  knowledge,  righteousness,  and  true  holiness," 
but  the  Larger  Catechism  describes  it  as  "  the  estate  of 
innocency  wherein  they  were  created." 

The  Committee  of  the  English  Presbyterian  Church 
in  their  new  articles  of  the  Faith  rightly  follow  the 
Larger  Catechism.  Dr.  Warfield,  in  his  criticism  of 
these  Articles,  strangely  asks :  "  Is  the  statement  in 
Article  V.  of  man's  original  state  as  one  '  of  innocence  ' 
(rather  than  of  a  positive  righteousness  and  true  holi- 
ness) a  further  concession  to  science  ?  "* 

There  has  been  a  great  change  in  psychology  since 
the  Westminster  Standards  were  written,  as  well  as 
in  ethical  philosophy.  This  must  be  kept  in  mind  by 
any  one  who  would  know  what  were  their  teachings  on 


*  Presbyterian  Review,  vol.  x.,  p.  122. 


108  EXCESSES.          • 

the  doctrine  of  man.  We  have  to  distinguish  Biblical 
psychology  from  the  psychology  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, and  then  recognize  that  all  our  thinking  at  the 
present  time  is  based  upon  an  entirely  different  psy- 
chology. 

The  whole  tendency  of  modern  times  has  been  to  em- 
phasize the  individual  man  and  his  actions.  The  West- 
minster divines  had  a  deeper  sense  of  the  solidarity  of  the 
human  race.  Hence  they  did  not  hesitate  to  lay  stress 
upon  original  sin  as  at  the  basis  of  all  sins  of  thought, 
word,  and  deed.  They  did  not  have  the  same  difficulty 
as  moderns  experience  with  the  doctrine  that — 

"  The  sinfulness  of  that  estate  whereinto  man  fell,  consisteth 
in  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin,  the  want  of  that  righteousness 
wherein  he  was  created  and  the  corruption  of  his  nature,  where- 
by he  is  utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  opposite  unto  all 
that  is  spiritually  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil,  and  that 
continually;  which  is  commonly  called  original  sin,  and  from 
which  do  proceed  all  actual  transgression."* 

The  Westminster  divines  did  not  sufficiently  appre- 
ciate the  ethical  development  of  mankind.  They  so  em- 
phasized sin  as  against  God,  and  in  its  infinite  guilt  as 
against  the  Creator,  and  the  original  act  of  Adam's  sin 
in  all  its  dreadful  consequences,  that  they  left  little  room 
for  the  doctrine  of  the  development  of  sin  in  the  indi- 
vidual and  the  race.  It  is  just  here  that  modern  psy- 
chology and  ethics  have  enlarged  our  field  of  study, 
and  so  brought  to  light  many  statements  of  Scripture 
that  the  Westminster  divines  overlooked  and  neglected. 

Many  dogmatic  divines,  by  an  undue  use  of  the  term 
total  depravity,  have  exaggerated  the  faults  of  the  Stand- 
ards themselves,  so  that  they  have  no  conception  of  the 


*  "  Larger  Catechism,"  Question  25 


WHITHER? 

stages  of  growth  of  sin  in  human  life  and  human  history ; 
no  space  for  the  ripening  of  sin  for  the  judgment  ;  no 
room  for  distinguishing  reprobate  men  from  demons, 
or  for  degrees  of  punishment  after  the  judgment  of  the 
day  of  doom.  The  mass  of  sin  and  the  race  of  sinners 
are  so  prominent  to  the  dogmaticians,  that  they  have  lit- 
tle or  no  sense  for  the  variations  of  sin  and  guilt,  and 
the  wonderful  diversity  of  character  and  acts  of  sinners. 
It  is  not  so  easy  as  it  used  to  be  to  think  that  for  any 
act  of  sin,  however  small  its  importance,  relatively  speak- 
ing, the  sinner  must  suffer  in  hell-fire  forever,  unless  re- 
deemed by  the  grace  of  God.  It  is  a  hard  doctrine  to 
teach  that  all  mankind  are  doomed  to  everlasting  damna- 
tion for  the  original  sin  in  which  we  share  with  our  first 
parents,  no  matter  what  the  theory  of  that  participation 
may  be. 

The  Scriptures  distinguish  between  sins  that  are  par- 
donable and  those  that  cannot  be  forgiven,  between 
those  that  may  be  covered  over  by  sacrifice  and  those 
that  cannot  be  covered  over  by  sacrifice,  but  may  be 
forgiven  by  the  grace  of  God  without  sacrifice.  And 
our  Saviour  teaches  that  there  is  one  only  unpardonable 
sin  ;  that  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  only  one 
that  cannot  be  forgiven,  either  in  this  life  or  the  next. 
The  Westminster  Standards  leave  this  field  of  the  doc- 
trine of  sin  entirely  unworked.  Modern  German  theol- 
ogy has  made  great  progress  in  this  direction,  but  this 
progress  has  not  been  shared  in  by  British  and  Ameri- 
can dogmaticians. 

HUMAN  INABILITY. 

Great  conflicts  have  been  waged  in  former  years  on 
the  freedom  of  the  will,  the  imputation  of  sin,  and 
human  inability.  I  do  not  propose  to  enter  into  these 


EXCESSES. 

questions  that  divided  the  old  school  Calvinists  from 
the  new  school.  I  call  attention  to  the  differences,  in 
order  to  show  that  the  Westminster  Standards  have  not 
determined  all  these  questions  for  us,  and  that  there  are 
still  now,  as  there  ever  have  been,  differences  among 
Presbyterians  on  these  subjects.  It  will  suffice  to  quote 
Dr.  Dabney  on  this  subject : 

"  I  have  said  that  the  attempts  made  by  Rivet  and  other  later 
divines,  to  prove  that  their  doctrine  of  immediate  precedaneous 
imputation  is  that  of  the  Reformed  Churches  and  Symbols,  are 
vain.  My  conviction  is  that  this  scheme,  like  the  supralapsarian, 
is  a  novelty  and  an  over-refinement,  alien  to  the  true  current  of 
the  earlier  Reformed  theology ;  and  some  of  Placaeus'  day  were 
betrayed  into  the  exaggerations  by  the  snare  set  for  them  by  his 
astuteness  and  their  own  over-zeal  to  expose  him."  * 

It  is  of  some  importance,  however,  to  consider  briefly 
the  question  of  human  inability,  for  here  the  difficulty 
is  chiefly  felt.  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge  teaches  that  the  inabil- 
ity of  man  to  accept  Christ  and  fulfill  the  law  of  God  is 
(i)  absolute,  (2)  moral,  (3)  natural.f  But  Henry  B.  Smith 
says  that  the 

"  Scriptures  always  conjoin  the  two  truths  of  natural  ability 
and  moral  inability,  and  they  should  be  conjoined  in  all  preach- 
ing." .  .  .  .  "  All  the  inability  he  is  under  is  a  sinful  inability. 
This  is  an  unwillingness,  which  is  not  merely  an  act  of  the  will, 
or  a  lack  of  action,  but  is  also  a  state  of  the  will,  constituting  a 
real  and  sufficient  obstacle  to  his  actually  doing  right.  He  has 
the  ability  in  will  as  the  power  of  choice,  to  accept  or  reject  the 
grace  offered  to  him,  to  obey  or  disobey  the  calls, — has  the 
efficiency  though  not  the  sufficiency."  J 

These  careful  distinctions  of  Dr.  Smith,  although  not 
made  in  the  Westminster  Standards,  are  not  against  the 


*  "  Theology,"  p.  347. 

t  "  Commentary  on  the  Confession  of  Faith,"  p.  226. 

J  "  System  of  Christian  Theology,"  pp.  335-6. 


WHITHER? 


Ill 


Standards.  But  there  are  not  a  few  Presbyterians  who 
with  Dr.  Howard  Crosby  are  in  direct  antithesis  to  the 
Standards  on  this  question. 


WESTMINSTER  CONFESSION. 


HOWARD   CROSBY. 


"  Man,  by  his  fall  into  a  state 
of  sin,  hath  wholly  lost  all  abil- 
ity of  will  to  any  spiritual  good 
accompanying  salvation  ;  so  as 
a  natural  man  being  altogether 
averse  from  that  good,  and  dead 
in  sin,  is  not  able,  by  his  own 
strength,  to  convert  himself,  or 
to  prepare  himself  thereunto.  "* 

"  All  those  whom  God  hath 
predestinated  unto  life,  and 
these  only,  he  is  pleased,  in  his 
appointed  and  accepted  time, 
effectually  to  call,  by  his  Word 
and  Spirit,  out  of  that  state  of 
sin  and  death,  in  which  they  are 
by  nature,  to  grace  and  salva- 
tion by  Jesus  Christ ;  enlighten- 
ing their  minds,  spiritually  and 
savingly,  to  understand  the 
things  of  God,  taking  away  their 
heart  of  stone,  and  giving  unto  i 
them  an  heart  of  flesh;  renewing 
their  wills,  and  by  his  almighty 
power  determining  them  to  that 
which  is  good  ;  and  effectually 
drawing  them  to  Jesus  Christ ; 
yet  so  as  they  come  most  freely, 
being  made  willing  by  his 
grace,  "t 


"  We  are  thus  left  to  a  clear, 
simple,  honest  gospel.  Christ 
calls  all  to  come  to  him.  The 
Father  has  given  his  Word  and 
Spirit  to  draw  all.  If  any  come 
not,  it  is  simply  because  they 
will  not  let  the  Father  draw 
them  by  his  Word  and  Spirit."  J 

"  Every  man  has  full  ability 
to  reject  or  accept  the  gospel 
of  salvation.  God  has  given  no 
more  ability  to  one  than  an- 
other." .  .  .  .  "  The  ability  to 
exercise  this  Faith  is  given  to 
all."  ....  "The  salvation  is 
altogether  of  Christ  and  his 
wonderful  grace.  Nevertheless 
the  faith,  the  grasp,  the  accept- 
ance, was  the  sinner's  own  (and 
not  God's)  act,  ability  to  exer- 
cise which  is  God's  gift,  and 
given  to  all."  § 


*  Chapter  ix.  3. 

J  "  Responsibility  before  the  Gospel,"  p.  8. 


t  Chapter  x.  x. 
§  /.  c.,  p.  10. 


EXCESSES. 

The  Confession  teaches  that  no  man  has  ability  of 
will  to  any  spiritual  good,  except  the  elect  to  whom  it  is 
given  by  God.  Dr.  Crosby  teaches  that  all  men  have 
full  ability,  and  that  God  has  given  no  more  ability  to 
one  than  to  another.  The  Confession  teaches  that  God 
effectually  calls  by  His  Word  and  Spirit  those  whom 
He  has  predestinated  unto  life,  and  those  only ;  but  Dr. 
Crosby  teaches  that  the  Father  has  given  His  Word  and 
Spirit  to  draw  all  men. 

THE   MEDIATOR. 

One  of  the  best  chapters  of  the  Confession  is  the  one 
entitled  "  Of  Christ  the  Mediator  ";  and  the  correspond- 
ing questions  in  the  Larger  Catechism  are  still  fuller  and 
richer.  The  Westminster  divines  grasped  the  whole  sub- 
ject of  the  Person  and  Work  of  Christ,  and  stated  it 
under  the  head  of  the  "  Mediator."  Here,  as  elsewhere, 
the  dogmaticians  have  cramped  the  Westminster  theol- 
ogy. Dr.  E.  D.  Morris,  in  a  recent  article,  said  : 

"  In  more  recent  usage  the  theological  term,  atonement, 
though  not  sustained  by  either  confessional  or  Scriptural  war- 
rant, has  largely  taken  the  place  of  the  other  and  more  inclusive 
word.  Whatever  may  be  the  reason  for  the  fact,  it  is  the  atone- 
ment wrought  by  Christ,  rather  than  His  mediation  comprehen- 
sively considered,  which  is  most  discussed  and  emphasized  in 
modern  theology."* 

An  Irish  divine  also  tells  us  that : 

"  Modern  popular  theology  dwells  exclusively  upon  the  atone- 
ment, without  taking  cognizance  of  the  connection  between  it 
and  the  incarnation,  which  is  practically  left  out  of  sight.  An- 
cient theology  dwelt  almost  though  not  altogether  as  exclu- 
sively upon  the  incarnation.  Athanasius  goes  so  far  as  to  say 
the  Son  became  man  '  that  by  the  power  of  his  incarnation  he 
might  make  men  God ;'  again,  'becoming  man  himself  he  made 


*  Presbyterian  Revieti\  vol.  vii.,  p.  232. 


WHITHER? 

men  to  be  Sons  and  to  be  Gods  ! '  The  disadvantage  of  the 
former  extreme  is  that  it  gives  the  whole  plan  of  salvation 
a  dry,  legal,  arbitrary  aspect,  which  does  not  recommend  itself 
to  the  conscience,  and  deprives  the  atonement  of  its  essential 
character  of  an  inward  moral  process.  One  of  the  disadvantages 
of  the  patristic  extreme  is  that  it  tends  to  connect  the  Lord's 
generic  life  with  the  old  humanity  into  which  he  entered,  rather 
than  with  the  new  of  which  he  was  the  head.  He  did  not  sim- 
ply restore  the  old,  but  created  the  new  ;  there  is  no  change  in 
human  nature  in  the  abstract ;  that  which  is  flesh  remains  flesh 
in  us,  and  produces  in  every  successive  generation  the  same  evil 
fruits.  He  arrested  the  stream  of  corruption  in  himself,  purify- 
ing and  transforming  our  nature  :  '  human  nature  was  blessed  in 
him,'  but  the  change  is  confined  to  his  sacred  person,  and  to 
those  who  by  faith  begin  to  participate  in  his  life.  The  new 
order  of  things  and  the  reign  of  Redemption  properly  date  from 
the  resurrection  ;  though,  since  he  gave  himself  to  us  in  becom- 
ing man,  and  since  his  life  was  a  moment  of  transition  more 
momentous  than  any  other  crisis  in  history,  it  was  no  mistake 
when  the  Christians  of  the  sixth  century  made  the  new  era  begin 
with  his  birth."* 

Accordingly  the  work  of  redemption  has  been  chiefly 
confined,  in  modern  theology,  to  the  work  wrought  upon 
the  cross  ;  to  the  neglect  of  the  doctrines  of  the  incarna- 
tion, the  holy  life,  the  descent  into  hades,  the  resurrec- 
tion, the  enthronement,  the  reign  of  Christ,  and  the 
second  advent ;  all  of  which  are  essential  to  the  work  of 
redemption. 

Another  recent  writer  has  called  attention  to  the  seri- 
ous neglect  in  modern  doctrine  of  the  incarnation  and 
its  redemptive  significance,  and  has  urged  reacting 
toward  the  early  theology  of  the  Greek  Church  as  a  true 
step  in  progress,  f  It  was  one  of  the  chief  merits  of  the 
late  Henry  B.  Smith,  that  he  overcame  this  defect  and 


*  "  Religion  of  Redemption,"  R.  W.  Monsell,  pp,  121-2.     London,  1867. 
t  A.  V.  G.  Allen's  "The  Continuity  of  Christian  Thought,"  Boston,  1884. 


EXCESSES. 

made  "  incarnation  in  order  to  redemption  "  one  of  the 
most  characteristic  features  of  his  system  of  doctrine. 

The  doctrine  of  the  humiliation  of  Christ  has  also 
been  neglected  until  quite  recent  times.  Dr.  Bruce,* 
following  Dr.  Dorner  and  other  German  divines,  has 
built  on  the  Westminster  statements,  and  enriched  the 
doctrine,  especially  in  its  ethical  aspects. 

On  the  other  hand,  other  Presbyterians  have  followed 
the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  Kenosis,  and  advanced  into 
dangerous  error.  Thus  Dr.  Howard  Crosby  goes  so  far 
as  to  state : 

"  The  divine  nature,  as  regards  its  efficiency,  was  dormant  in 
Christ  during  His  humiliation.  Its  essence  was  there,  for  it  is 
impossible  for  Deity  to  become  extinct,  but  its  efficiency  was  in 
some  mysterious  way  paralyzed  in  the  person  of  Jesus."  t 

"  There  is  not  and  ought  not  to  be  a  vestige  of  Deity  in  His 
(Christ's)  conscious  life  till  after  the  resurrection."  J 

"No  action  of  our  Saviour's  earthly  life  from  Bethlehem  to 
Calvary,  exhibits  divinity.  "§ 

"A  present,  active  Godhood  would  have  destroyed  the  babe 
and  made  a  monstrosity."  | 

All  of  these  sentences  are  in  conflict  with  the  follow- 
ing Westminster  definitions : 

"  It  was  requisite  that  the  Mediator  should  be  God,  that  he 
might  sustain  and  keep  the  human  nature  from  sinking  under 
the  infinite  wrath  of  God,  and  the  power  of  death ;  give  worth 
and  efficacy  to  his  sufferings,  obedience,  and  intercession ;  and 
to  satisfy  God's  justice,  procure  his  favour,  purchase  a  peculiar 
people,  give  his  Spirit  to  them,  conquer  all  their  enemies,  and 
bring  them  to  everlasting  salvation."  I 

"  The  estate  of  Christ's  humiliation  was  that  low  condition, 
wherein  he,  for  our  sakes,  emptying  himself  of  his  glory,  took 


*  "  Humiliation  of  Christ."    Sixth  series  of  the  Cunningham  Lectures, 
t «'  True  Humanity  of  Christ,"  p.  a6.  \  /.  c.t  p.  44. 

«  /.  f.,  p.  33.  |  /.  c.,  p.  37.  If  ••  Larger  Catechism,"  Q.  38. 


WHITHER? 

upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant,  in  his  conception  and  birth,  life, 
death,  and  after  his  death  until  his  resurrection."* 

These  statements  teach  that  Christ  emptied  Himself  of 
His  glory  in  His  state  of  humiliation.  Dr.  Crosby  de- 
clares that  Christ  emptied  Himself  of  His  divinity.  The 
Standards  teach  that  the  divine  nature  was  active,  sus- 
taining the  human  nature  of  Christ  and  giving  worth 
and  efficacy  to  His  sufferings  and  obedience.  Dr.  Crosby 
teaches  that  the  divine  nature  was  inactive  and  inefficient, 
and  as  to  its  efficacy  paralyzed. 

In  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement  too  much  stress  has 
been  laid  upon  theories  of  substitution  and  satisfaction 
in  connection  with  the  death  of  Christ  on  the  cross, 
using  the  symbolism  of  the  slaying  of  the  sacrificial  vic- 
tim, and  the  peculiar  idea  of  the  guilt  or  trespass-offer- 
ing of  the  Old  Testament.  The  significance  of  the  other 
more  important  ceremonies  in  connection  with  the  Old 
Testament  sacrifices  and  the  meaning  of  the  more  an- 
cient and  more  frequent  sacrifices,  have  been  overlooked. 
The  symbolism  of  the  Old  Testament  sacrifices  is  much 
richer  than  the  dogmatic  divines  have  yet  realized.  The 
whole  burnt-offering  has  as  its  antitype  the  ascension 
of  the  holy  Jesus  into  the  heavens  to  offer  His  whole 
body  and  person  a  voluntary  offering  acceptable  to  God, 
the  pledge  and  surety  of  the  acceptance  of  the  worship 
of  His  people.  The  peace-offering  has  as  its  antitype,  the 
provision  that  the  enthroned  Messiah  has  made  for  the 
nourishment  of  His  people  in  communion  with  Him. 
The  special  peace-offerings,  such  as  the  covenant  sacri- 
fice and  the  passover,  lead  on  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  with 
its  provision  of  the  flesh  and  blood  of  the  Messiah  as 
the  source  of  life  and  growth  to  His  people.  The  sin- 
offering,  with  its  application  of  blood  to  the  divine  altars 

*  "  Larger  Catechism,"  Q.  46. 


116 


EXCESSES. 


to  purge  them  from  the  filth  of  sin,  has  as  its  counter- 
part the  ascent  of  our  Saviour  to  heaven  to  become  the 
blood-stained  throne  of  grace.  The  significance  of  these 
offerings  is  not  so  much  in  the  death  of  the  victim  as 
in  the  use  of  the  flesh  and  blood  of  the  victim  after 
it  had  been  slain.  And  so  modern  theology,  by  limit- 
ing itself  to  the  death  of  the  cross,  has  not  appre- 
hended the  most  important  points  in  the  sacrificial 
system  of  the  Old  Testament  and  in  the  work  of 
our  Saviour  Himself.  We  do  not  worship  a  dead 
Christ ;  we  are  not  redeemed  by  a  buried  Redeemer. 
The  Lamb  of  God  who  taketh  away  all  sin,  is  a  lamb 
that  was  slain,  but  has  ever  since  lived  and  will  live 
forever.  To  the  living  and  enthroned  Saviour  we  look 
for  salvation. 

Accordingly  the  dogmaticians  have  neglected  Christ's 
state  of  exaltation.  One  of  my  colleagues  tells  me  that 
in  his  youth  he  never  heard  a  discourse  on  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus  Christ.  How  small  a  proportion  of  the 
teaching  and  preaching  is  upon  the  reigning  Christ  and 
the  Christ  of  the  Second  Advent !  The  proportion  of 
the  Scriptures  has  been  neglected.  The  proportion  of 
the  Westminster  Standards  has  been  abandoned.  Dr. 
Morris  presents  this  very  strikingly  in  the  following 
table  of  Christological  topics : 


MEDIA- 

PROPH- 

PRIEST- 

TION. 

ECY. 

HOOD. 

KINGSHIP. 

Van  Oosterzee. 

8  pages. 

6  pages. 

34  pages. 

7  pages. 

Dorner  

10      " 

4      " 

153     " 

27        " 

Charles  Hodge. 

7      " 

2         " 

130     « 

13        " 

Henry  B.  Smith. 

6      " 

o      " 

51      " 

II        " 

WHITHER? 

This  table  justifies  his  excellent  though  over-cautious 
words : 

"  It  is  also  a  delicate  and  yet  just  query  whether,  in  the  strong 
and  tender  emphasizing  of  the  priestly  office  so  characteristic  of 
evangelical  Protestantism  ever  since  the  Reformation,  Christ  the 
King  and  Christ  the  prophet  have  not  been  relatively  too  much 
retired  from  both  dogma  and  experience.  It  is  a  still  more  deli- 
cate query  whether,  as  Lutheran  writers  have  sometimes  alleged, 
the  Reformed  theology  has  not  been  especially  prone  to  exalt 
the  Christus  pro  nobis,  centered  particularly  in  the  priesthood,  at 
the  expense  of  the  Christus  in  nobis,  manifested  especially  in  our 
Divine  Teacher  and  Example,  Ruler  and  Lord."  * 

Dr.  Morris  might  have  gone  further  and  stated  with 
propriety  that  the  larger  portion  of  the  material  he  has 
included  under  the  head  of  the  priesthood  of  Christ 
really  belongs  to  Christ  the  victim,  the  sacrifice,  and 
not  to  Christ  the  priest ;  and  this  would  have  shown 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  heavenly  priesthood  has  also 
been  neglected. 

In  all  these  respects  the  dogmaticians  and  the  minis- 
try have  abandoned  the  proportions  of  the  Standards 
and  have  neglected  their  express  statements.  No  one 
can  truly  say  that  the  following  excellent  definition  is 
followed,  in  its  proportions  and  in  all  its  sentences,  by 
the  Presbyterian  Church  of  our  day : 

"  It  pleased  God,  in  his  eternal  purpose,  to  choose  and  ordain 
the  Lord  Jesus,  his  only  begotten  Son,  to  be  the  mediator  be- 
tween God  and  man,  the  prophet,  priest,  and  king ;  the  head 
and  saviour  of  his  Church,  the  heir  of  all  things,  and  judge  of 
the  world ;  unto  whom  he  did,  from  all  eternity,  give  a  people 
to  be  his  seed,  and  to  be  by  him  in  time  redeemed,  called,  jus- 
tified, sanctified,  and  glorified."  t 


*  Presbyterian  Review,  vol.  vii.,  pp.  243-44. 
t  "  Confession  of  Faith,"  chap,  viii.,  sec.  i. 


EXCESSES. 


EFFECTUAL  CALLING. 

The  work  of  Redemption  begins,  so  far  as  man  is  con- 
cerned,  with  effectual  calling.  Under  this  head  the  West- 
minster divines  brought  all  that  has  been  ordinarily 
treated,  since  the  rise  of  Methodism,  under  the  head  of 
regeneration.  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  Westminster 
divines  have  no  chapter  or  section  upon  regeneration 
and  seldom  use  the  term.  The  Scriptures  use  other 
terms  besides  regeneration  —  such  as  resurrection  and 
creation.  Regeneration  presents  the  new  life  from  one 
point  of  view,  but  does  not  by  any  means  give  a  com- 
prehensive statement  of  the  whole  subject.  Such  a 
comprehensive  view  can  be  gained  only  by  a  synthesis 
of  all  the  terms  used  in  the  Scriptures. 

I  do  not  propose  to  consider  all  the  variations  from 
this  chapter  that  now  exist  in  the  Church  ;  I  shall  limit 
myself  to  a  few. 

In  the  times  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  little  was 
known  of  the  heathen  world.  The  divines  did  not 
stumble  over  the  doctrine  of  the  lost  condition  of  the 
heathen.  A  few  broad-minded  men,  such  as  Zwingli, 
indulged  in  a  larger  hope,  and  thought  that  the  grace  of 
God  might  save  Socrates  and  Plato  ;  but  these  were  ex- 
ceptions, and  this  view  was  looked  upon  with  suspicion. 
It  is  only  by  the  vast  extension  of  commerce  in  modern 
times,  and  the  opening  up  of  the  world  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  Church,  that  Christian  people  have  been  im- 
pressed with  the  thought  that  the  vast  majority  of 
mankind  now  living  are  given  up  to  everlasting  pun- 
ishment by  the  Old  Theology  ;  and  accordingly,  recoil- 
ing from  this  pit  of  horror,  the  Church  in  general  and 
most  recent  theologians  have  sought  in  some  way  to  save 
some  of  the  heathen. 


WHITHER? 

The  Westminster  doctrine  of  the  salvation  of  infants 
is  stated  in  the  Westminster  Confession.*  "  Elect  in- 
fants, dying  in  infancy,  are  regenerated  and  saved  by 
Christ  through  the  Spirit,  who  worketh  when,  and 
where,  and  how  he  pleaseth.  So  also  are  all  other  elect 
persons,  who  are  incapable  of  being  outwardly  called  by 
the  ministry  of  the  word."  In  this  clause  the  Westmin- 
ster divines  recognize  that  salvation  is  not  confined  to 
those  who  are  outwardly  called  by  the  ministry  of  the 
Word.  Some  who  never  hear  the  Gospel  of  redemption 
in  this  world  are  saved  by  Jesus  Christ.  Furthermore, 
redemption  is  not  confined  to  those  who  have  been  bap- 
tized. 

"  Although  it  be  a  great  sin  to  contemn  or  neglect  this 
ordinance,  yet  grace  and  salvation  are  not  so  inseparably 
annexed  unto  it,  as  that  no  person  can  be  regenerated  or 
saved  without  it,  or  that  all  that  are  baptized  are  un- 
doubtedly regenerated."  f  Thus,  the  Westminster  di- 
vines take  the  position  of  the  Reformed  Churches,  that 
the  divine  electing  grace  is  not  confined  to  external 
means ;  that  the  ordinary  means  of  grace  are  not  essen- 
tial to  salvation ;  and  that  there  are  some  elect  persons 
who  are  saved  without  them. 

These  persons  saved  without  baptism  and  the  outward 
ministry  of  the  Word  are  not  "  infants  "  and  "  other  per- 
sons," or  "  all  infants "  and  "  all  other  persons,"  but 
"  elect  infants  "  and  "  all  other  elect  persons  ";  and  the 
latter  not  "  all  other  elect  persons  who  have  not  been  out- 
wardly called,"  but  "  all  other  elect  persons  who  are  in- 
capable of  being  outwardly  called  by  the  ministry  of  the 
Word."  It  seems  plain  that  the  adjective  "elect"  lim- 
its "infants"  as  it  does  "all  other  persons";  and  that 

*  Chap.  x.  3.  t  Chap,  xxviii.  5. 


120  EXCESSES. 

the  Westminster  Confession  teaches  that  there  are  some 
elect  persons  among  infants  and  incapables  who  cannot 
hear  the  Gospel,  as  well  as  among  those  who  hear  the 
Gospel  and  enjoy  the  sacraments.  That  this  is  the 
meaning  of  the  Confession  was  not  doubted  till  recent 
times.  But  in  the  present  century,  evangelical  opinion 
has  settled  to  the  theory  that  all  infants  dying  in  infancy 
are  saved;  and  many  Presbyterians  endeavor  to  interpret 
the  Confession  of  Faith  to  conform  with  the  modern 
theory.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Confession 
means  by  "  all  other  elect  persons  "  incapables — that  is, 
those  who  have  not  their  normal  faculties  of  mind,  and 
so,  like  infants,  are  "  incapable  "  of  hearing  the  outward 
call  of  the  Gospel  and  of  responding  to  it.  The  authors 
of  the  Confession  had  no  thought  of  including  the 
heathen  in  this  class.  Those  who  seek  to  find  a  basis 
for  the  salvation  of  elect  heathen  must  look  for  it  else- 
where. For  the  heathen  are  not  "incapable  of  being 
outwardly  called  by  the  ministry  of  the  Word."  They 
are  entirely  capable  of  being  called,  and  that  is  the  rea- 
son why  we  are  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  them.  The  in- 
capacity here  is  not  in  the  heathen  or  in  the  Saviour  and 
His  salvation,  but  in  the  Church  and  the  ministry  of  the 
Word. 

It  was  conceived  by  the  Westminster  divines  that  in- 
capables might  have  an  internal  call  and  be  regenerated. 
But  no  Westminster  divines  thought  of  saving  the 
heathen  in  that  way.  Indeed  the  next  section  ex- 
pressly rules  them  out  from  salvation : 

"  Others,  not  elected,  although  they  may  be  called  by  the  min- 
istry of  the  word,  and  may  have  some  common  operations  of  the 
Spirit,  yet  they  never  truly  come  to  Christ,  and  therefore  cannot 
be  saved :  much  less  can  men,  not  professing  the  Christian  re- 
ligion, be  saved  in  any  other  way  whatsoever,  be  they  never  so 


WHITHER  ?  121 

diligent  to  frame  their  lives  according  to  the  light  of  nature,  and 
the  law  of  that  religion  they  do  profess ;  and  to  assert  and  main- 
tain that  they  may  is  very  pernicious,  and  to  be  detested."* 

The  Larger  Catechism  puts  it  still  more  tersely  when 
it  says : 

"  Q.  Can  they  who  have  never  heard  the  gospel,  and  so  know 
not  Jesus  Christ,  nor  believe  in  him,  be  saved  by  their  living  ac- 
cording to  the  light  of  nature  ? 

"  ANS.  They,  who  having  never  heard  the  gospel,  know  not 
Jesus  Christ,  and  believe  not  in  him,  cannot  be  saved,  be  they 
never  so  diligent  to  frame  their  lives  according  to  the  light  of 
nature,  or  the  laws  of  that  religion  which  they  profess ;  neither 
is  there  salvation  in  any  other  but  in  Christ  alone,  who  is  the 
Saviour  only  of  his  body  the  church."  t 

There  is  no  salvation  for  those  who  have  not  believed 
in  Jesus  Christ  and  been  justified  by  faith,  according  to 
the  Westminster  Standards.  Those  who  fall  back  upon 
the  freedom  and  fulness  of  the  grace  of  God  for  the 
salvation  of  some  heathen  may  be  correct,  but  they  go 
against  the  express  doctrines  of  the  Standards  and  assert 
what  the  Confession  regards  as  very  "  pernicious  and  de- 
testable error." 

DAMNATION   OF  INFANTS. 

The  Westminster  Confession  classes  incapables  and 
infants  together,  and  teaches  that  there  are  elect  ones 
among  them  as  well  as  among  others.  In  recent  times 
the  Church  has  stumbled  over  the  doctrine  of  the  damna- 
tion of  infants,  and  the  phrase  "elect  infants"  which 
seems  to  imply  that  doctrine.  It  is  necessary  for  us  to 
determine  its  historical  meaning. 

*  "  Confession  of  Faith,"  chap,  x.,  sec.  4. 
t  "  Larger  Catechism,"  Q.  60. 


122  EXCESSES. 

The  original  phrase  as  reported  to  the  Westminster 
Assembly  by  the  third  grand  committee,  November 
13,  1645,  was  "elect  of  infants."  This  committee  con- 
sisted of  twenty-eight  in  all,  a  third  of  the  Assembly. 
Their  phrase  makes  their  opinion  sufficiently  evident. 
We  shall  give  an  extract  from  one  of  them,  Anthony 
Burgess,  who  lectured  against  the  Antinomians  early  in 
the  year  1646  at  the  request  of  the  President  and  Fel- 
lows of  Sion  College,  London.  He  published  his  book, 
"  Vindiciae  Legis,"  at  their  request.  He  was  regarded 
as  expressing  the  views  of  the  Presbyterians  at  this  time 
in  this  controversy.  He  says  : 

"  The  third  Question  concerning  this  naturall  light  is,  Whether 
it  be  sufficient  for  salvation  ?  For,  there  are  some  that  hold,  If 
any  man,  of  whatsoever  Nation  he  be,  worship  God  according  to 
the  light  of  Nature,  and  so  serve  him,  he  may  be  saved.  Hence 
they  have  coined  a  distinction  of  a  three-fold  piety:  Judica, 
Christiana,  and  Ethenica.  Therefore  say  they,  What  Moses  was 
to  the  Jewes,  and  Christ  to  the  Christians ;  the  same  is  Philos- 
ophy, or  the  knowledge  of  God  by  nature,  to  Heathens.  But  this 
opinion  is  derogatory  to  the  Lord  Christ ;  for  onely  by  faith  in 
his  Name  can  we  be  saved,  as  the  Scripture  speak eth.  And,  cer- 
tainly, if  the  Apostle  argued  that  Christ  died  in  vain,  if  workes 
were  joyned  to  him  ;  how  much  more  if  he  be  totally  excluded  ? 
It  is  true,  it  seemeth  a  very  hard  thing  to  mans  reason,  that  the 
greater  part  of  the  world,  being  Pagans  and  Heathens,  with  all 
their  infants,  should  be  excluded  from  heaven.  Hence,  because 
Vedelius,  a  learned  man,  did  make  it  an  aggravation  of  Gods 
grace  to  him,  to  chuse  and  call  him,  when  so  many  thousand 
thousands  of  pagan-infants  are  damned  :  this  speech,  as  being 
full  of  horridnesse,  a  scoffing  Remonstrant  takes,  and  sets  it 
forth  odiously  in  the  Frontispice  of  his  Book.  But,  though  our 
reason  is  offended,  yet  we  must  judge  according  to  the  way  of 
the  Scripture ;  which  makes  Christ  the  only  way  for  salvation.  If 
so  it  could  be  proved,  as  Zwinglius  held,  that  Christ  did  com- 
municate himself  to  some  Heathens,  then  it  were  another  mat- 
ter. I  will  not  bring  all  the  places  they  stand  upon,  that  which 


WHITHER?  123 

is  mainly  urged  is  Act  10.  of  Cornelius ;  his  prayers  were  ac- 
cepted, and,  saith  Peter,  now  I  perceive,  &c.  But  this  proceedeth 
from  a  meere  mistake ;  For  Cornelius  had  the  implicite  knowledge 
and  faith  of  Christ  and  had  received  the  doctrine  of  the  Messias, 
though  he  was  ignorant  of  Christ,  that  individuall  Person. 

"  And  as  for  that  worshipping  of  him  in  euery  Nation,  that  is 
not  to  be  understood  of  men  abiding  so,  but  whereas  before  it 
was  limited  to  the  Jewes,  now  God  would  receive  all  that  should 
come  to  him,  of  what  Nation  soeuer."  * 

The  minutes  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  show  that 
there  was  "  a  debate  about  elect  of  infants  ";  but  inas- 
much as  there  is  no  report  of  the  debate  and  no  indica- 
tion of  points  of  difference,  such  as  we  find  in  the  min- 
utes when  important  differences  were  developed,  the 
debate  was  doubtless  upon  the  mode  of  expression. 
The  phrase  seems  not  to  have  been  changed  by  vote  of 
the  Assembly,  for  there  is  no  record  of  such  a  vote.  It 
was  probably  changed  as  a  matter  of  style  either  by  the 
Committee  that  had  charge  of  "  the  wording  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith,"  or  by  Dr.  Cornelius  Burgess,  who 
had  charge  of  the  final  transcription  of  the  Confession 
before  it  was  taken  up  to  Parliament. 

The  Committee  on  "  the  wording  of  the  Confession  " 
consisted  of  Edward  Reynolds,  Charles  Herle,  Matthew 
Newcommen,  John  Arrowsmith,  and  the  commissioners 
of  the  Church  of  Scotland.  We  shall  give  the  testimony 
of  two  of  them. 

Robert  Baylie,  one  of  the  Scottish  commissioners,  ex- 
cludes the  infants  of  the  heathen  from  the  salvation 
enjoyed  by  the  infants  of  believers  in  the  following  terse 
form  of  catechism  : 

"  An  infantes  fidelium  habendi  sunt  tarn  vacui  sanctitate,  tarn 
alieni  a  benedictionibus  Christi  et  regno  coelorum  quam  infantes 


*  "  Vindiciae  Legis,"  1647,  pp.  80,  81. 


124  EXCESSES. 

Turcarum  et  Paganorum  ?  Resp.  Horrenda  haec  crudelitas  con- 
tradicit  Apostolo.  I.  ad.  Cor.  vii.  19.  Item  Christo  Marci,  xiv. 
16."* 

Samuel  Rutherford,  another  of  the  Scotch  commis- 
sioners, puts  the  doctrine  in  a  rhetorical  form,  thus: 

"  Suppose  wee  saw  with  our  eyes,  for  twenty  or  thirty  yeers  to- 
gether, a  great  furnace  of  fire,  of  the  quantity  of  the  whole  earth, 
&  saw  there  Cain,  Judas,  Ahitophel,  Saul,  and  all  the  damned  as 
lumps  of  red  fire,  and  they  boyling  and  louping  for  pain  in  a  dun- 
geon of  everlasting  brimstone,  and  the  black  and  terrible  devils 
with  long  &  sharp-tooth'd  whips  of  Scorpions,  lashing  out 
scourges  on  them ;  and  if  we  saw  there  our  Neighbours,  Breth- 
ren, Sisters,  yea  our  dear  Children,  Wives,  Fathers,  and  Mothers, 
swimming  and  sinking  in  that  black  Lake,  and  heard  the  yelling, 
shouting,  crying  of  our  yong  ones  and  fathers,  blaspheming  the 
spotlesse  Justice  of  God ;  if  wee  saw  this  while  we  are  living  here 
on  Earth,  we  should  not  dare  to  offend  the  Majesty  of  God,  but 
should  hear,  come  to  Christ,  and  beleeve  and  be  saved.  But  the 
truth  is,  If  wee  beleeve  not  Moses  and  the  Prophets,  neither  should 
wee  beleeve  for  this."t 

We  have  examined  the  writings  of  the  other  mem- 
bers of  the  Committee  and  have  failed  to  find  any  evi- 
dence that  these  differed  from  Baylie,  Rutherford,  or 
their  brethren  of  the  third  grand  committee  on  this  sub- 
ject. 

Dr.  Burgess,  through  whose  hands  the  Confession 
went  in  its  final  transcription,  was  the  author  of  the  book 
entitled  "  Baptismal  Regeneration  of  Elect  Infants," 
Oxford,  1629.  There  can  be  no  doubt  of  his  use  of  the 
term  "  elect  infants."  It  is  altogether  likely  that  in  the 
final  transcription  of  the  Confession,  he  made  the  change 
from  "  elect  of  infants  "  to  "  elect  infants  "  as  meaning  the 
same  thing.  He  takes  the  following  position  in  his  book: 

*  "  Catechesis  Elenctica  Errorum,"  London,  1654,  p.  36. 
.    t  "  Tryal  and  Triumph  of  Faith,"  London,  1645,  p.  36. 


WHITHER?  125 

"  //  t's  most  agreeable  to  the  Institution  of  Christ,  that  All  Elect 
Infants  that  are  baptized  (unless?  in  some  extraordinary  cases)  doe, 
ordinarily,  receive,  from  Christ,  the  Spirit  in  Baptisme,  for  their 
first  solemne  initiation  into  Christ,  and  for  their  future  actuall  re- 
novation, in  Gods  good  time,  if  they  live  to  year es  of  discretion,  and 
enjoy  the  other  ordinary  meanes  of  Grace  appointed  of  God  to  this 
end."  *  He  also  quotes  the  following  extract  from  Dr.  Thomas 
Taylor's  "  Commentary  on  Titus  "  with  entire  approval  :  "  let 
us  first  Distinguish  of  Infants ;  of  whom  some  be  elected,  and 
some  belong  not  to  the  election  of  grace.  These  latter  receive 
only  the  outward  element,  and  are  not  inwardly  washed  :  The 
Former  receive,  in  the  right  use  of  the  Sacrament,  the  Inward 
Grace  ;  not  that  hereby  we  ty  the  Maiesty  of  God  to  any  time  or 
meanes,  whose  spirit  bloweth  when  &  where  he  listeth  ;  on  some 
before  baptisme,  who  are  sanctified  from  the  womb ;  on  some 
after :  but  because  the  Lord  Delighteth  to  Present  Himself e  Gra- 
tious  in  his  owne  Ordinance ;  we  may  conceive  that  in  the  right 
use  of  this  Sacrament,  He  Ordinarily  Accompanieth  It  With  his 
Grace:  Here,  according  to  his  Promise,  we  may  expect  it,  and 
Here  we  May  and  Ought  send  out  the  prayer  of  Faith  for  it."  f 

It  is  evident  that  the  change  from  "  elect  of  infants  " 
to  "  elect  infants  "  was  not  occasioned  by  any  differences 
of  opinion  as  to  the  salvation  of  infants  in  these  com- 
mittees as  distinguished  from  the  grand  committee. 

We  shall  give  a  few  additional  witnesses  from  leading 
divines  who  were  not  members  of  these  committees,  and 
whc^may  therefore  be  regarded  as  representing  the  other 
sections  of  the  Westminster  Assembly.  We  shall  begin 
with  the  Prolocutor. 

William  Twisse,  defending  the  doctrine  of  reproba- 
tion against  Mr.  Heard,  says  : 

"  If  many  thousands,  even  all  the  infants  of  Turkes  and  Sara- 
zens  dying  in  originall  sinne,  are  tormented  by  him  in  Hell  fire, 
is  he  to  be  accounted  the  father  of  cruelties  for  this  ?  And  I 

*  Page  21.  t  Page  33. 


126  EXCESSES. 

professe  I  cannot  devise  a  greater  shew  and  appearance  of  cruelty, 
than  in  this.  Now  I  beseech  you  consider  the  spirit  that  breath- 
eth  in  this  man  (Heard) ;  dares  he  censure  God,  as  a  Father  of 
cruelties  for  executing  e^ternall  death  upon  them  that  are  guilty 
of  it?"* 

One  of  the  most  influential  divines  in  the  Westminster 
Assembly  was  Stephen  Marshall,  the  great  preacher  of 
the  civil  wars.  Marshall  preached  a  "  Sermon  of  the 
Baptizing  of  Infants  "  in  Westminster  Abbey  at  a  morn- 
ing lecture  in  1645.  In  this  sermon  he  makes  the  fol- 
lowing objection  against  the  views  of  those  who  reject 
infant  baptism  : 

"  This  opinion  puts  all  Infants  of  all  Beleevers  into  the  self-same 
condition  with  the  Infants  of  Turks  and  Indians,  which  they  all 
readily  acknowledge  ;  and  from  thence,  unavoidably,  one  of  three 
things  must  follow — i.  Either  all  of  them  are  damned  who  die 
in  their  Infancy,  being  without  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  having 
no  part  in  Christ.  Or,  2.  All  of  them  saved,  as  having  no  orig- 
inall  Sinne,  and  consequently  needing  no  Saviour ;  which  most 
of  the  Anabaptists  in  the  world  doe  own,  and  therefore  bring  in 
all  Pelagianism,  Universal  Grace,  Free-  Will,  etc.  Or,  3.  That 
although  they  be  tainted  with  Originall  corruption,  and  so  need 
a  Saviour,  Christ  doth  pro  beneplacito,  save  some  of  the  Infants  of 
Indians  and  Turks,  dying  in  their  Infancy,  as  well  as  some  of  the 
Infants  of  Christians,  and  so  carry  salvation  by  Christ  out  of  the 
Church,  beyond  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  where  God  never  made 
any  promise. 

"  That  God  hath  made  a  promise  to  be  the  God  of  Beletvers, 
and  of  their  Seed,  we  all  know ;  but  where  the  promise  is  to  be 
found,  that  he  will  be  the  God  of  the  seed  of  such  parents  who 
live  and  die  his  enemies,  and  their  seed,  not  so  much  as  called 
by  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  I  know  not. 

"  These  men  say  the  Covenant  of  Grace  made  to  the  Jews, 
differs  from  the  Covenant  made  with  us;  but  I  desire  to  know 
whether  in  the  one,  or  in  the  other,  they  find  any  promise  of  Sal- 


*  "  The  Riches  of  God's  Love  unto  the  Vessells  of  Mercy,"  Oxford,  1653, 
P.  135. 


WHITHER?  127 

vation  by  Christ  to  any  Infants  dying  in  their  Infancy,  whose 
parents  no  way  belonged  to  the  Family  of  God,  or  Covenant  of 
Grace."  * 

April  2,  1646,  Stephen  Marshall  published  "A  de- 
fence of  Infant  Baptism  in  Answer  to  two  Treatises  and 
an  Appendix  to  them  concerning  it  lately  published  by 
John  Tombes."  For  this  work  Marshall  received  a  vote 
of  thanks  by  the  Westminster  Assembly.  He  replies  to 
Tombes  thus  : 

"  Next  let  us  see  how  you  avoid  being  goared  by  the  three 
homes  of  my  Syllogisme.  I  said,  all  being  left  in  the  same  con- 
dition, i.  All  must  be  saved.  Or  2.  All  must  bee  damned.  Or  3. 
God  saves  some  of  the  Infants  of  the  Turkes,  and  some  of  the  In- 
fants of  beleevers  pro  beneplacito. 

"  After  some  discourse  of  the  two  first  of  these,  you  deny  the 
consequence  :  //  follows  not  (say  you)  God  may  save  some,  and 
those  some  may  bee  the  Infants  of  beleevers,  and  none  of  the  Infants 
of  Turks  and  Indians. 

"  Its  true,  a  man  that  will  may  venture  to  say  so  ;  and  if  an- 
other will,  he  may  venture  to  say,  That  those  some,  are  the  Infants 
of  Pagans,  and  not  of  Christians :  and  hee  that  should  say  so, 
hath  as  good  warrant  for  this,  as  you  have  for  the  other,  accord- 
ing to  your  principle.  But  what's  this  to  the  question  before  us  ? 
I  said,  This  opinion  leaves  them  all  in  the  like  condition ;  One 
having  no  more  reference  to  a  promise  than  another. 

"  Now  if  you  will  avoid  being  goared  by  any  of  these  three 
homes,  you  should  have  shewed,  that  according  to  your  opin- 
ion, there  is  some  promise  for  some  of  the  Infants  of  beleevers, 
though  there  be  none  for  the  Infants  of  Pagans.  But  instead  of 
shewing  how  your  doctrine  and  opinion  leaves  them  :  you  tell  me 
what  God  may  possibly  doe  in  his  secret  Counsell,  which  is  alto- 
gether unknowne  to  us.  But  I  perceive  your  selfe  suspected  this 
answer  would  not  endure  the  tryall :  and  therefore  you  quarrell 
at  that  expression  of  mine,  That  if  any  of  the  Infants,  of  such  as 
live  and  die  Pagans  be  saved  by  Christ ;  then  salvation  by  Christ  is 
carryed  out  of  the  Church,  whereof  God  hath  made  no  promise. 

*  Page  7. 


128  EXCESSES. 

"Against  this  you  except ;  i.  That  salvation  is  not  carryed  out 
of  the  invisible  Church  ;  though  some  Infants  of  Pagans  should  bee 
saved  by  Christ. 

"  I  answer,  it's  true ;  and  I  adde,  That  if  any  man  shall  say, 
the  Devils  should  be  saved  by  Christ :  even  that  Opinion  would  not 
carry  salvation  out  of  the  invisible  Church.  But  Sir,  we  are  en- 
quiring after  the  salvation  of  them  to  whom  a  promise  of  salva- 
tion is  made.  Now  when  you  can  prove  that  God  hath  made  a 
promise,  that  he  will  gather  a  number,  or  hath  a  number  whose 
names  are  written  in  the  Lambs  book,  although  their  Parents 
never  knew  Jesus  Christ,  nor  themselves  ever  live  to  bee  in- 
structed, you  may  then  perswade  your  Reader  to  beleeve,  that 
even  some  of  the  Infants  of  Pagans  dying  in  their  Infancy  be- 
long to  the  invisible  Church :  and  till  then,  you  must  give  him 
leave  to  beleeve  that  this  answer  is  brought  in  as  a  shift,  onely 
to  serve  your  present  need."  * 

William  Carter,  a  leading  preacher  among  the  Inde- 
pendents and  a  member  of  the  Westminster  Assembly, 
thus  distinguishes  between  the  children  of  believers  and 
the  children  of  unbelievers  : 

"  That  which  made  this  difference  was  not  to  be  found  in  that 
which  was  meerly  natural ;  for  the  Jewes  were  borne  in  originall 
Sinne,  and  corrupted  thereby  as  much  as  the  Gentiles ;  but  in 
something  supernatural,  namely,  because  the  Jewes,  though  they 
were  sinful  too,  yet  they  were  under  the  means  of  grace,  and  they 
had  God  engaged  by  covenant  to  them  and  their  children  for 
their  good.  But  as  for  the  Gentiles,  he  left  them  to  their  natural 
condition,  without  such  means  to  mend  them,  nor  was  God  en- 
gaged so  to  them  for  their  good ;  but  they  were  under  the  curse 
of  God,  therefore  they  grew  wild  as  a  tree  in  the  Wildernesse  that 
hath  none  to  order  it.  And  so  were  all  those  that  came  of  them, 
such  children  of  such  parents,  alike  under  the  curse  of  God  in 
sinne,  and  not  looked  after  or  regarded  by  the  Lord 

"Therefore  I  say,  this  is  one  thing  which  makes  this  differ- 
ence between  the  children  of  beleevers,  and  of  unbeleevers,  that 
they  are  holy,  and  these  common  or  unclean,  because  they  are 

»  Pages  87,  88. 


WHITHER?  129 

under  such  a  word  of  blessing  which  these  are  not ;  yea  though 
we  cannot  with  certainty  affirm  of  this  or  that  Infant  of  a  beleever 
that  it  is  inherently  holy  yet  holy  as  thus  separated  and  differ- 
enced, from  those  who  are  common,  by  that  word  of  blessing 
from  God,  under  which  they  are.  As  we  cannot  upon  certainty 
affirm  of  any  particular  person  in  the  Church  that  he  is  inherently 
holy,  because  he  may  make  a  lye  in  his  confession,  yet  of  every 
such  person  we  can  say  he  is  in  that  sense  holy,  namely,  as  sepa- 
rated unto  God  in  that  relation,  and  thereby  differenced  from 
those  who  are  common  or  uncleane."  * 

Antony  Tuckney  was  a  leader  among  the  Westmin- 
ster divines.  He  was  chiefly  responsible  for  the  Answers 
to  the  Questions  on  the  Ten  Commandments  in  the 
Larger  Catechism,  and  was  chairman  of  the  Committee 
that  prepared  the  Shorter  Catechism.  July  4,  1652,  he 
preached  at  Cambridge  a  sermon  on  Acts  iv.  2.  This  was 
published  in  1654  under  the  title  "  None  but  Christ,"  with 
an  Appendix  discussing  the  salvation  of  —  "  I.  Heathen; 
2.  Those  of  the  Old  World,  the  Jews  and  others  before 
Christ ;  and  3.  Such  as  die  infants  and  idiots,  etc.,  now 
under  the  gospel."  This  was  written  in  answer  to  a 
book  of  Nathaniel  Culverwell,  entitled^  "  Light  of  Na- 
ture," 1652,  which  advocated  the  salvation  of  some  of  the 
heathen. 

"  i.  It  cannot  rationally  be  said,  that  there  was  an  equall  in- 
vincibility of  ignorance  in  those  Heathens,  to  that  which  is  in 
Infants  and  distracted  persons,  which  want  the  use  of  reason 
which  they  had ;  and  therefore  might  have  made  more  use  of  it 
then  they  did ;  and  therefore  their  sin  was  more  wilful,  and  so 
made  them  more  obnoxious  to  Gods  wrath,  which  therefore  these 
Infants,  etc.,  as  less  guilty,  may  in  reason  better  escape. 

"  2.  How  God  worketh  in,  or  dealeth  with  elect  Infants,  which 
dye  in  their  infancy  (for  any  thing  that  I  have  found)  the  Scrip- 
ture speaks  not  so  much,  or  so  evidently,  as  for  me  (or  it  may  be 


*  "  The  Covenant  of  God  with  Abraham  opened,"  London,  1654,  pp.  101, 102. 


130  EXCESSES. 

for  any)  to  make  any  clear  or  firm  determination  of  it.  But  yet 
so  much  as  that  we  have  thence  ground  to  believe,  that  they 
being  in  the  Covenant,  they  have  the  benefit  of  it,  Acts  iii.  25. 
Gen.  xvii.  7. 

"  Whether  God  may  not  work  and  act  faith  in  them  then,  (as 
he  made  John  Baptist  leap  in  the  womb)  which  Beza,  and  others 
of  our  Divines  deny,  and  others  are  not  unwilling  to  grant,  I  dare 
not  peremptorily  determine.  Yet  this  I  may  say,  that  he  acteth 
in  the  souls  of  Believers  in  articulo  merits,  when  some  of  them 
are  as  little  able  to  put  forth  an  act  of  reason,  as  they  were  in 
articulo  nativitatis.  But  the  Scripture  (for  any  thing  that  I 
know)  speaks  not  of  this,  and  therefore  I  forbear  to  speak  any 
thing  of  it. 

"Only  (as  I  said)  it  giveth  us  ground  to  believe,  that  they 
being  in  the  Covenant  may  be  so  wrapt  up  in  it,  as  also  to  be 
wrapt  up  in  the  bundle  of  life,  and  did  it  give  us  but  as  good 
hopes  of  the  Heathens  (of  whom  it  rather  speaks  very  sadly)  as 
it  doth  of  such  Infants,  I  should  be  as  forward  as  any  to  perswade 
my  self  and  others,  that  they  were  in  a  hopeful  condition. 

"  For  such  infants,  suppose  they  have  not  actual  faith,  so  as  to 
exert  it,  yet  they  may  have  it  infused  in  the  habit,  they  are  born 
in  the  Church,  and  in  the  Covenant,  and  what  the  faith  of  the 
Church,  and  of  their  believing  parents  may  avail  them,  I  do  not 
now  particularly  inquire  into !  .  .  .  . 

"  And  whereas  iflention  was  made  of  an  anticipating  and  pre- 
venting grace  of  God,  by  which  without  faith  he  might  be  saved ; 
I  conceive  and  believe  that  it  is  abundant  anticipating-  and  pre- 
venting grace,  when  either  in  Him  or  in  any,  God  beginneth  and 
worketh  faith  to  lay  hold  on  Christ.  But  such  a  preventing 
grace  as  to  accept  us  for  Christ  sake  without  faith  in  Christ,  the 
Scripture  mentioneth  not,  is  a  new  notion  of  a  young  Divine, 
which  without  better  proof  must  not  command  our  belief,  or  im- 
pose upon  our  credulity."  * 

This  passage  also  makes  it  clear  that  the  Westminster 
divines  did  not  mean  to  make  the  salvation  of  infants  a 
different  salvation  from  that  of  adults.  The  work  of 
effectual  calling  is  the  same  with  reference  to  all  the  elect. 

*  "  None  but  Christ,"  pp.  134-37. 


WHITHER? 

The  special  mention  of  infants  and  incapables  does  not 
separate  them  from  the  work  of  effectual  calling.  It 
defines  with  reference  to  them  that  this  calling  is  not  in 
the  ordinary  way  of  "  being  outwardly  called  by  the  min- 
istry of  the  word,"  but  in  an  extraordinary  way  of  being 
inwardly  called  by  the  Spirit,  who  "  worketh  when  and 
where  and  how  he  pleaseth."  The  time,  the  place,  and 
the  mode  of  this  effectual  calling  is  not  determined.  As 
Tuckney  does  not  venture  to  affirm  that  this  takes  place 
in  articulo  mortis,  so  the  Confession  does  not  define  it. 
But  as  Tuckney  states  that  it  is  a  new  notion  of  the 
young  man  Culverwell  that  there  can  be  salvation  with- 
out faith  in  Christ,  and  he  preached  his  discourse  against 
Culverwell's  doctrine  that  some  heathen  might  be  saved, 
and  contended  that  salvation  was  by  faith  in  Christ 
only;  so  the  Westminster  Confession  takes  the  posi- 
tion that  "  those  whom  God  effectually  calleth  he  also 
freely  justifieth  ";  *  and  "  God  did,  from  all  eternity,  de- 
cree to  justify  all  the  elect  ;  and  Christ  did,  in  the  ful- 
ness of  time,  die  for  their  sins,  and  rise  again  for  their 
justification:  nevertheless  they  are  not  justified,  until  the 
Holy  Spirit  doth,  in  due  time,  actually  apply  Christ  unto 


This  section  of  the  Confession  was  aimed  expressly  at 
the  Antinomian  doctrine  of  eternal  justification,  and  it  in- 
sists that  there  can  be  no  justification  until  Christ  has  been 
applied  by  the  Spirit  and  appropriated  by  faith.  This 
doctrine  of  eternal  justification  without  faith  was  urged 
at  this  time  by  John  Saltmarsh,  and  is  strongly  opposed 
by  Thomas  Gataker  in  his  "  Shadowes  without  Sub- 
stance," published  in  1646,  thus: 

"  Christ  you  say,  z's  ours  without  Faith  ;  but  we  can  not  know 
*  XI.  i.  t  XI.  4. 


132  EXCESSES. 

him  to  be  ours  but  by  believing  ;  and  you  reject  this  under  the  title 
of  the  Reformed  opinion  and  more gener all,  that  none  are  justified' 
or  partakers  of  salvation,  but  by  faith.  And  if  no  conditions  at 
all  be  required  for  obtaining  Salvation  by  Christ  as  was  formerly 
affirmed  by  you,  then  neither  Faith  also :  Yea,  to  this  you  come 
fully  home,  where  you  say,  that  the  Covenant  now  under  the  Gos- 
pel is  such  a  kind  of  Covenant,  as  was  established  with  Noah,  Gen. 
ix.  I  clear  against  the  strain  of  the  old,  wherein  man  was  to  have 
his  life  upon  condition.  And  in  this  your  Reply,  you  deny  the  re- 
ceiving of  Christ  to  be  acknowledged  by  you  as  a  condition.  And 
indeed,  if  the  promise  of  salvation  by  Christ,  be  as  absolute  and 
free  from  all  condition  as  that  Covenant  made  with  Noah  ;  then 
may  a  man  be  saved  by  Christ,  tho  he  never  know  or  look  after 
Christ ;  as  he  is  sure  never  to  perish  by  an  aecumenicall  deluge, 
tho  he  neither  know  nor  believe,  nor  do  ever  heare  of  such  a 
Covenant  concerning  it."  * 

tl  2.  The  Apostle  telleth  us  in  expresse  terms,  that  he  believed 
in  Christ ;  that  he  might  be  justified  by  Christ,  thereby  implying 
that  he  was  not  actually  justified,  or  had  part  in  the  justification 
procured  and  purchased  by  the  death  of  Christ,  until  he  believed. 
And  albeit  the  ransome,  whereby  we  are  freely  (in  regard  of  our 
selves)  justified,  be  wholly  in  Christ  Jesus ;  yet  is  he  said  to  be 
set  forth  for  an  atonement  unto  us  through  faith  in  his  blood ;  nor 
where  those  branches  of  the  wild  Olive,  which  were  taken  to  suc- 
ceed in  the  roome  of  those  who  were  broken  off,  actually  in 
Christ,  but  out  of  Christ,  untill  upon  their  believing  they  were 
engraffed  into  Christ."  t 

It  is  very  strange  in  recent  times  to  see  Protestant 
divines  going  against  this  essential  doctrine  of  the 
Confession  in  their  efforts  to  escape  the  doctrine  of  the 
damnation  of  infants.  This  movement  seems  to  have 
been  begun  by  Dr.  Archibald  Alexander.  In  his  youth 
he  was  greatly  influenced  by  the  Baptists  in  Virginia; 
and  when  President  of  Hampden  and  Sidney  College, 
in  1797-9,  he  was  greatly  troubled  about  infant  baptism, 
and  for  a  while  discontinued  its  use.  These  influences 


*  "  Shadowes  without  Substance,"  1646,  p.  13.  t  /.  c.,  p.  44. 


WHITHER?  133 

led  him  to  abandon  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  the  dam- 
nation of  non-elect  infants. 

In  a  letter  to  Bishop  Mead  he  says : 

"  As  infants,  according  to  the  creed  of  all  reformed  churches, 
are  infected  with  original  sin, they  cannot.without  regeneration.be 
qualified  for  the  happiness  of  heaven.  Children  dying  in  infancy, 
must  therefore  be  regenerated  without  the  instrumentality  of 
the  Word ;  and  as  the  Holy  Scriptures  have  not  informed  us 
that  any  of  the  human  family  departing  in  infancy  will  be  lost, 
we  are  permitted  to  hope  that  all  such  will  be  saved."  * 

Dr.  Alexander  here  teaches  a  new  doctrine,  namely, 
that  all  will  be  saved  except  those  of  whom  the  Holy 
Scriptures  have  informed  us  that  they  will  be  lost. 
Nothing  is  said  about  the  faith  of  infants.  He  thinks 
that  all  such  will  be  regenerated,  and  saved  by  regener- 
ation. The  Standards  teach  that  only  the  elect  will  be 
saved,  and  that  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  is  the  only  way  to 
salvation ;  but  Dr.  Alexander  ignores  faith  and  justifi- 
cation for  infants,  and  makes  regeneration  the  means  of 
salvation  for  all  those  of  whom  Scripture  does  not  tell 
us  that  they  are  lost.  I  do  not  see  how  we  can  confine 
this  enlarged  hope  of  regeneration  to  infants  or  even 
heathen,  on  the  ground  taken  by  Dr.  Alexander. 

This  new  doctrine  of  the  universal  salvation  of  infants 
is  still  further  advanced  by  Dr.  Charles  Hodge,  who 
teaches  that : 

"  Faith  is  the  condition  of  justification.  That  is,  so  far  as 
adults  are  concerned,  God  does  not  impute  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  to  the  sinner,  until  and  unless,  he  (through  grace),  re- 
ceives and  rests  on  Christ  alone  for  his  salvation. "t 

Thus  by  the  clause  "  so  far  as  adults  are  concerned," 
Dr.  Hodge  exempts  infapts  from  the  exercise  of  faith. 


*  "  Life  of  Dr.  Arch.  Alexander,"  p.  584.    New  York,  1854.         t  III.,  p.  118. 


134  EXCESSES. 

This  new  doctrine  reaches  its  culmination  in  the  teach- 
ing of  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge,  who  takes  the  position  that : 
"  in  the  justification,  therefore,  of  that  majority  of  the 
elect  which  die  in  infancy,  personal  faith  does  not  me- 
diate." * 

And  thus  these  American  divines  undermine  the  vital 
principle  of  the  Reformation,  Justification  by  faith 
only ;  for  they  teach  that  the  majority  of  the  elect  are 
justified  without  faith.  They  go  over  into  the  Anti- 
nomian  error  of  justification  without  faith.  This  error 
is  tersely  exposed  by  Wallis,  the  Westminster  divine  : 

"  That  we  are  saved  not  only  in  the  eternal  decree  without  faith, 
but  even  in  the  execution,  is  strange  divinity.  For  if  without 
faith,  then  without  Christ,  for  Christ  is  no  further  ours,  than  ap- 
prehended by  faith.  As  for  the  eternal  decree  (of  Election  he 
means),  it  is  true  we  are  not  through  faith,  elected  to  salvation, 
but  we  are  elected  to  salvation  through  faith.  Faith  is  not  the 
cause  of  the  decree,  but  faith  is  decreed  to  be  the  cause  of 
salvation."t 

The  Westminster  Standards  allow  no  advance  in  the- 
ology in  the  direction  of  justification  without  faith.  They 
do  not  define  the  time  when  the  justification  of  elect 
infants  and  incapables  takes  place ;  they  do  not  define 
the  place  where  it  takes  place ;  they  do  not  define  the 
mode  in  which  Christ  is  presented  to  the  elect  infant, 
and  how  the  child  exercises  saving  faith.  They  leave  all 
these  questions  undetermined. 

We  are  able  to  say  that  the  Westminster  divines  were 
unanimous  on  this  question  of  the  salvation  of  elect 
infants  only.  We  have  examined  the  greater  part  of  the 
writings  of  the  Westminster  divines,  and  have  not  been 
able  to  find  any  different  opinion  from  the  extracts  we 


*  Princeton  Review,  1878,  p.  315.  t  "  Truth  Tried,"  1642,  pp.  95,  96. 


WHITHER?  135 

have  given.  The  Presbyterian  churches  have  departed 
from  their  standards  on  this  question,  and  it  is  simple 
honesty  to  acknowledge  it.  We  are  at  liberty  to  amend 
the  Confession,  but  we  have  no  right  to  distort  it  and  to 
pervert  its  grammatical  and  historical  meaning. 

The  difficulty  involved  in  the  salvation  of  elect  infants 
is :  to  define  when  the  Spirit  effectually  calls  them  by 
"  enlightening  their  minds,  spiritually  and  savingly,  to 
understand  the  things  of  God,  taking  away  their  heart  of 
stone,  and  giving  unto  them  an  heart  of  flesh  ;  renewing 
their  wills,  and  by  his  almighty  power  determining  them 
to  that  which  is  good  ;  and  effectually  drawing  them  to 
Jesus  Christ?'  How  "being  quickened  and  renewed  by 
the  Holy  Spirit  "  is  the  infant  "  thereby  enabled  to  answer 
this  call,  and  to  embrace  the  grace  offered  and  conveyed  in 
it  "  ?  In  the  infant  who  lives  to  years  of  discretion  we 
may  see  the  operation  of  the  divine  Spirit  in  regenera- 
tion, renewal,  and  drawing  him  to  Christ ;  and  with  re- 
gard to  infants  dying  in  infancy,  we  can  understand  that 
the  dynamic  work  of  regeneration  has  been  wrought ; 
but  how  can  we  conceive  of  the  drawing  to  Jesus  Christ, 
the  answer  to  the  call,  the  embracing  of  the  grace  freely 
offered,  and  the  exercise  of  faith  ?  The  Westminster 
Standards  leave  all  these  questions  unanswered  for  us, 
and  we  are  free  to  speculate  as  much  as  we  please,  so 
long  as  we  do  not  trench  upon  the  substance  of  doctrine 
that  has  been  defined.  It  is,  however,  contrary  to  the 
Westminster  Confession  to  believe  in  the  salvation  of 
all  infants,  or  to  believe  in  the  salvation  of  any  of  the 
heathen  who  are  capable  of  being  outwardly  called  by 
the  ministry  of  the  Word. 

As  late  as  1728,  Professor  Simpson,  of  Glasgow,  was 
charged  with  heresy  for  teaching 


136  EXCESSES. 

"that  it  is  more  than  probable,  that  all  unbaptized  infants 
dying  in  infancy  are  saved,  and  that  it  is  manifest,  if  God  should 
deny  his  grace  to  all,  or  any  of  the  children  of  infidels,  he  would 
deal  more  severely  with  them  than  he  did  with  fallen  angels."  * 

The  doctrine  of  the  extension  of  redemption  to  a  few 
elect  persons  who  are  idiots  and  incapable  of  being  out- 
wardly called  by  the  ministry  of  the  Word,  to  elect  in- 
fants who  might  be  baptized,  and  to  the  few  of  the  chil- 
dren of  believers  who  died  unbaptized,  might  leave  the 
time,  place,  and  mode  of  their  calling  and  acceptance  of 
Christ  undetermined.  But  the  doctrine  of  the  universal 
salvation  of  infants  dying  in  infancy  involves  the  doc- 
trine that  "  heaven  is  in  great  measure  composed  of  the 
souls  of  redeemed  infants,"  and  that  "  the  majority  of 
the  elect  die  in  infancy  ";  and  "  that  the  vast  majority 
of  our  race  are  saved,  not  in  the  ordinary  way  of  the 
outward  call  by  the  ministry  of  the  Word,  but  in  an  ex- 
traordinary way,  without  that  outward  call.f 

This  extension  of  salvation,  vastly  beyond  what  the 
Westminster  divines  contemplated,  constrains  us  to  ask 
what  that  extraordinary  way  is,  and  how  it  may  be  rec- 
onciled with  the  ordinary  way  of  salvation,  or  how  the  two 
ways  may  be  comprehended  in  a  greater  whole. 

As  Dr.  Prentiss  says  : 

"  The  change  from  the  position  generally  held  by  Calvinistic 
divines  at  the  beginning,  or  in  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  to  the  ground  taken  by  Dr.  Charles  Hodge,  in  1871,  in 
his  '  Systematic  Theology  '  is  simply  immense.  It  amounts  to  a 
sort  of  revolution  in  theological  opinion,  a  revolution  all  the 
more  noteworthy  from  the  quiet,  decisive  way  in  which  it  was  at 
last  accomplished,  the  general  acquiescence  in  it,  and  also  the  ap- 
parent unconsciousness  of  its  logical  consequences."  J 


*  "  Case  of  Professor  Simpson,"  Edinburgh,  1728.  t  See  p.  174. 

t  Presbyterian  Review,  iv.,  p.  556. 


WHITHER? 

If  the  Church  has  failed  thus  far  to  advance  to  the 
inevitable  consequences  of  this  doctrine,  it  cannot  re 
frain  much  longer  from  it.  It  must  either  recede  to  the 
Westminster  position,  or,  having  abandoned  it  for  a  new 
doctrine,  it  must  give  good  reasons  for  the  new  doctrine, 
justify  it  by  evidence  from  Scripture,  and  make  the  re- 
construction of  the  related  doctrines  that  is  necessarily 
involved. 

We  do  not  hesitate  to  express  our  dissent  from  the 
Westminster  Confession  in  this  limitation  of  the  divine 
electing  grace.  We  are  of  the  opinion  that  God's  elect- 
ing grace  saves  all  infants,  and  not  a  few  of  the  heathen. 
We  base  our  right  to  differ  from  the  Westminster  di- 
vines on  their  own  fundamental  principle,  that  the  elect- 
ing grace  of  God  is  not  tied  to  the  administration  of 
the  ordinary  means  of  grace. 

But  it  is  vain  to  construct  the  doctrine  of  the  uni- 
versal redemption  of  infants  on  the  ruins  of  the  Prot- 
estant doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  only.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  destroy  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  order 
of  redemption  through  Christ.  The  relief  is  to  be 
found  in  a  more  comprehensive  view  of  redemption,  and 
an  extension  of  the  gracious  operations  of  God  into  the 
middle  state,  between  death  and  the  resurrection,  where 
the  order  of  salvation,  begun  for  infants  and  others  in 
regeneration,  may  be  conducted  through  all  the  pro- 
cesses of  justification  by  faith,  adoption,  sanctification 
by  repentance,  and  glorification  in  love  and  holiness,  in 
the  communion  of  God  and  the  Messiah. 

FORGIVENESS  OF  SIN. 

In  such  ways  as  these  recent  Protestant  divines  under- 
mine and  destroy  the  vital  principle  of  the  Reformation, 
justification  by  faith  only. 


138  EXCESSES. 

The  doctrine  of  justification  is  also  injured  by  the  neg- 
lect of  the  doctrine  of  forgiveness  of  sin. 

Luther  says : 

"  What  we  need  to  learn  is  that  we  become  righteous  and  are 

released  from  sins,  by  the  forgiveness  of  sins Christian 

righteousness  is  nothing  without  the.  forgiveness  of  sins."  * 

Calvin  says : 

"  The  righteousness  of  faith  is  a  reconciliation  with  God  which 

consists  solely  in  remission  of  sins It  appears,  then,  that 

those  whom  God  receives,  are  made  righteous  no  otherwise  than 
as  they  are  purified  by  being  cleansed  from  all  their  defilements 
by  the  remission  of  their  sins  ;  so  that  such  a  righteousness  may, 
in  one  word,  be  denominated  a  remission  of  sins."t 

Turretine  leads  the  way  in  the  departure  from  the 
faith  of  the  Reformation  as  to  forgiveness  of  sins,  and 
many  recent  divines  follow  him  into  worse  error.  This 
is  so  well  stated  by  Principal  D.  W.  Simon,  that  I  shall 
simply  quote  him : 

"  Dr.  C.  Hodge  leaves  us  in  no  doubt  as  to  his  view  of  the  mat- 
ter, though  one  cannot  but  be  surprised  how  little  is  said  ex- 
pressly on  the  subject  of  the  '  forgiveness  of  sin,' — nay  more,  how 
rarely  the  expression  occurs, — considering  the  stress  laid  on  it, 
not  only  in  the  Scriptures,  but  also  by  the  early  Protestant 
divines.  The  official  conception  of  God  and  his  relation  to  men 
may  be  said  to  have  reached  its  climax  in  his  system  :  '  Men  may 
philosophize  about  the  nature  of  God,  his  relation  to  his  crea- 
tures, and  the  terms  on  which  he  will  forgive  sin,  and  they  may 
never  arrive  at  a  satisfactory  conclusion  ;  but  when  the  question 
is  simply,  What  do  the  Scriptures  teach  on  this  subject?  the 
matter  is  comparatively  easy.  In  the  Old  Testament  and  in  the 
New,  God  is  declared  to  be  just,  in  the  sense  that  His  nature  de- 
mands the  punishment  of  sin :  that,  therefore,  there  can  be  no 
remission  without  such  punishment,  vicarious  or  personal ;  that 
the  plan  of  salvation  symbolically  and  typically  exhibited  in  the 

*  Kostlin's  "  Luther's Theologie,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  445.    "  Luther's  Werke,"  v.  s.  247. 
t  "  Institutes,"  iii.  n,  21. 


WHITHER?  139 

Mosaic  institution,  expounded  in  the  prophets,  and  clearly  and 
variously  taught  in  the  New  Testament,  involves  the  substitution 
of  the  incarnate  Son  of  God  in  the  place  of  sinners,  who  assumed 
their  obligation  to  satisfy  divine  justice,  and  that  He  did  in  fact 
make  a  full  and  perfect  satisfaction  for  sin,  bearing  the  penalty  of 
the  law  in  their  stead.'  * 

" '  Redemption  is  deliverance  from  evil  by  the  payment  of  a 
ransom.  The  price  paid  for  our  ransom  is  Christ.' t  'Justifica- 
tion cannot  be  mere  pardon  '  J  for  justification  is  a  forensic  pro- 
cedure, a  '  judicial  act.'  §  '  A  pardoned  criminal  is  not  only  just 
as  much  a  criminal  as  he  was  before,  but  his  sense  of  guilt  and 
remorse  of  conscience  are  in  no  degree  lessened.  Pardon  can  re- 
move only  the  outward  and  arbitrary  penalty.  The  sting  of  sin 
remains'  \ 

"  And  this  is  the  theology  that  claims  to  be  par  excellence, 
Biblical  and  '  orthodox,'  according  to  the  recognized  standards 
and  divines  of  Protestantism  ! "  1T 

(2).  We  have  already  seen  that  the  climax  of  this  de- 
parture from  the  faith  of  the  Reformation  has  been  at- 
tained by  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge.  He  changes  the  order  of 
salvation  in  an  Antinomian  direction.  This  error  is  so 
tersely  exposed  by  Dr.  Shedd  that  I  shall  simply 
quote  him : 

"  Dr.  Hodge  asserts  that  '  justification  must  precede  regenera- 
tion '  (p.  340) ;  that  '  regeneration  follows  immediately  upon  be- 
ing received  into  the  favor  of  God  on  the  condition  (ground  ?) 
of  Christ's  righteousness  '  (p.  341)  ;  and  that  '  faith  is  the  neces- 
sary source  of  regeneration '  (p.  343).  This  is  not  the  teaching 
of  the  Westminster  standards,  to  say  nothing  of  Scripture,  re- 
specting the  order  of  regeneration  and  justification.  According 
to  these,  justification  is  preceded  by  effectual  calling.  'Those 
whom  God  effectually  calleth,  He  also  freely  justifieth '  (Con- 
fess., xii.  i).  But  effectual  calling  includes  regeneration,  which 
constitutes  a  part  of  it.  '  They  who  are  effectually  called  and 


*  "  Systematic  Theology,"  vol.  ii.,  pp.  478  seq.  t  /.  c.,  p.  514. 

J  /.  c.,  vol.  iii.,  p.  125.  §  Vol.  iii.,  p.  126.  |  Vol.  iii.,  p.  128. 

If  "  Redemption  of  Man,"  pp.  280-281.     See  also  pp.  95-96  of  this  chapter. 


140  EXCESSES. 

regenerated,  have  a  new  heart  and  a  new  spirit  created  in  them ' 
(Confess.,  xiii.  i).  Regeneration  is  that  part  of  effectual  calling 
which  is  described  as  'savingly  enlightening  the  mind  and  renew- 
ing and  powerfully  determining  the  will,  so  that  the  elect  are 
thereby  made  willing  and  able  freely  to  answer  God's  call  and 
embrace  the  grace  offered  therein'  (/.  c.  67).  Prior  to  this  im- 
parting of  Divine  life  to  the  soul  dead  in  sin,  neither  faith  nor 
repentance  (the  two  converting  acts)  is  possible.  By  it  the  elect 
have  'the  grace  of  faith  whereby  they  are  enabled  to  believe  to 
the  saving  of  their  souls'  (Confession,  xiv.  i).  Regeneration  is 
thus  plainly  taught  to  be  prior  to  the  act  of  faith  in  the  order  of 
salvation,  and  faith  is  unquestionably  prior  to  justification.  An 
unbeliever  cannot  be  justified.  Justifying  faith  is  a  product  of 
regeneration,  and  cannot,  therefore,  be  the  '  source '  of  it,  as  Dr. 
Hodge  asserts.  There  is  nothing  either  in  Scripture  or  the 
Westminster  symbols  to  support  the  view  that  God  first '  changes 
the  relation  of  the  justified  person  to  the  law,  and  receives  him 
into  His  favor  on  the  condition  of  an  imputed  righteousness, 
and  then  regeneration  follows  immediately  upon  this '  (p.  341). 
If  this  be  so,  it  would  follow  either  that  God  justifies  a  person 
prior  to  faith  in  Christ  and  without  faith,  or  else  that  an  unre- 
generate  person  can  exercise  saving  faith — which  latter  position 
is  denied  over  and  over  again  in  the  Westminster  standards."  * 

These  specimens  of  modern  errors  might  be  in- 
creased in  number,  but  we  have  given  a  sufficient  num- 
ber to  show  that  leading  divines  have  greatly  injured  the 
Westminster  system,  partly  by  neglecting  important 
doctrines,  but  chiefly  by  excess  in  speculation  ;  and  that 
there  are  many  errors  of  this  kind  that  must  be  removed 
from  the  minds  of  the  ministry  and  the  people,  ere  they 
can  clearly  understand  the  Westminster  Confession,  or 
the  Faith  of  the  Reformation,  or  can  make  any  true 
progress  in  theology. 


*  Presbyterian  Review ',  vol.  viii.,  p.  758. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

FAILURES. 

THE  second  group  of  chapters  of  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith  embraces  those  doctrines  which 
Orthodoxism  has  failed  to  recognize  and  value.  These 
are: 

XII.  Of  Adoption,     i  section. 

XIII.  Of  Sanctification.    3  sections. 

XIV.  Of  Saving  Faith.    3  sections. 

XV.  Of  Repentance  unto  Life.    6  sections. 
XVI.  Of  Good  Works.    7  sections. 
XVII.  Of  the  Perseverance  of  the  Saints.    3  sections. 
XVI 1 1.  Of  the  Assurance  of  Grace  and  Salvation.    4  sections. 
XIX.  Of  the  Law  of  God.    7  sections. 

XX.  Of  Christian  Liberty  and  Liberty  of  Conscience.    4  sec- 
tions. 

XXI.  Of  Religious  Worship  and  the  Sabbath  Day.    8  sections. 
XXII.  Of  Lawful  Oaths  and  Vows.    7  sections. 
Total  of  53  sections. 

As  the  first  group  of  doctrines,  considered  in  our  last 
chapter,  gives  us  the  doctrines  upon  which  scholastic 
Calvinists  have  ever  laid  the  greatest  stress,  this  group 
gives  us  the  most  characteristic  features  of  Puritanism, 
and  exhibits  the  advance  that  the  second  Reformation 
made  beyond  the  first  Reformation  and  the  orthodoxy 
of  the  continent  of  Europe. 

It  is  evident  at  a  glance  that  these  doctrines  have 
been  neglected  by  modern  evangelical  divines.  But 

(141) 


142  FAILURES. 

no  one  can  estimate  the  extent  of  their  departure  from 
the  faith  of  their  fathers  until  he  has  considered  them  in 
some  detail. 

It  is  sometimes  said  that  Presbyterians  never  get  be- 
yond a  certain  chapter  of  the  epistle  to  the  Romans. 
It  might  be  said  with  more  propriety  that  they  do  not 
go  beyond  the  eleventh  chapter  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith.  If  the  tendency  of  the  Church  at  present  is  to 
advance  in  an  ethical  direction,  then  true  progress  is 
not  only  to  study  the  closing  chapters  of  the  epistle  to 
the  Romans,  but  also  the  characteristic  doctrines  of 
Puritanism  contained  in  the  eleven  chapters  that  make 
up  the  middle  section  of  the  Westminster  Confession. 

It  is  instructive  to  observe  how  Dr.  Charles  Hodge 
deals  with  these  doctrines.  In  his  "  Systematic  Theol- 
ogy "  he  has  a  chapter  on  Sanctification,  in  which  he 
also  treats  of  Good  Works,  making  in  all  46  pages ;  he 
expounds  the  Law  of  God  on  the  basis  of  the  Cate- 
chisms in  207  pages,  but  passes  over  the  general  doc- 
trine of  the  Law  as  given  in  the  Confession ;  he  dis- 
cusses Saving  Faith  and  Assurance,  briefly,  in  17  pages 
under  the  head  of  Justification;  and  this  is  all  he  at- 
tempts to  do  with  these  grand  chapters  of  Puritanism. 
Dr.  Charles  Hodge  is  not  the  only  delinquent  here. 
He  simply  discloses  the  general  attitude  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  to  these  doctrines. 

ADOPTION. 

The  doctrine  of  Adoption  is  passed  over  altogether  by 
Dr.  Charles  Hodge.  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge  is  obliged  to  con- 
sider it  in  his  "  Exposition  of  the  Confession  of  Faith," 
but  the  three  pages  given  to  it  are  striking  in  their  meagre 
and  unsatisfactory  statements.  His  brief  discussion  in 
his  Outlines  is  little  better.  The  scholastic  divines  have 


WHITHER?  143 

so  exaggerated  divine  sovereignty  and  salvation  in  its 
relations  to  the  divine  justice,  that  they  have  little  con- 
ception of  the  vital  relation  between  Christ  and  His  peo- 
ple established  in  redemption,  and  of  the  divine  Father- 
hood and  human  sonship  involved  therein.  The  whole 
process  of  salvation  is  to  them  so  mechanical,  objective, 
and  external,  that  they  do  not  apprehend  the  deeper  and 
more  comprehensive  relations  of  the  redemption  of  man- 
kind. The  Fatherhood  of  God  is  one  of  the  most  prec- 
ious doctrines  of  the  Scriptures,  and  we  rejoice  that  it 
has  its  due  place  and  importance  in  the  Westminster 
Symbols ;  but  the  people  have  been  deprived  of  its  com- 
fort, until  recent  times,  by  the  neglect  of  it  in  the  teach- 
ing of  so-called  orthodox  divines. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God  was  brought 
into  prominence  by  the  debate  between  the  two  Scottish 
theologians,  Dr.  Candlish  and  Prof.  Crawford.  Both  of 
these  divines  gave  their  attention  simultaneously  to  this 
important  doctrine.  Dr.  Candlish  made  it  the  theme  of 
his  Cunningham  Lecture,  and  claimed  that  he  was  not 
merely  reviving  an  old  doctrine,  but  making  an  advance 
in  theology  in  his  exposition  of  it.  Dr.  Candlish  says : 

"  But  if  this  relation  of  sonship,  as  shared  by  the  Son  with  his 
disciples,  has  suffered  from  its  close  connection  with  regenera- 
tion not  having  been  sufficiently  recognised,  it  has  suffered  per- 
haps still  more  seriously  from  so  many  of  our  theologians  having 
failed  to  recognise  sufficiently  its  entire  distinction  and  separa- 
tion from  justification.  The  two  have,  to  a  large  extent,  been 
confounded  and  mixed  up  together.  What  God  does  in  the  act 
of  adoption  has  been  so  represented  as  to  make  it  either  a  part 
of  what  he  does  in  the  act  of  justification  or  a  mere  appendage 
and  necessary  corollary  involved  in  that  act."  * 

Prof.  Crawford  agrees  with  Dr.  Candlish  as  to  the  im- 


*  "  Fatherhood  of  God,"  Edin.,  1867,  p.  237. 


144:  FAILURES. 

portance  of  the  doctrine  and  its  discrimination  from 
justification.  These  two  divines  differ  chiefly  on  the 
question  of  the  natural  Fatherhood  of  God  as  embracing 
all  men.  This  Prof.  Crawford  correctly  affirms  and 
strongly  maintains  against  Dr.  Candlish.  At  the  same 
time  lie  carefully  discriminates  the  gracious  Fatherhood 
of  the  redeemed  from  the  natural  Fatherhood  of  all 
men.  Turretine,  here  as  elsewhere,  led  the  older  divines 
into  error.  He  included  Adoption  under  Justification, 
and  in  this  was  followed  by  Hill,  Dick,  Dabney,  and 
others. 

Dr.  Candlish  claims  that  Adoption  in  the  Westminster 
Standards 

"  is  left  in  the  last  degree  vague  and  indefinite."  .  ..."  I  hold 
them,  therefore,  to  have  virtually  left  the  whole  of  that  depart- 
ment of  theology  which  bears  on  God's  paternal  relation  to  his 
people,  and  their  filial  relation  to  him,  an  entirely  open  question, 
— a  perfect  tabula  rasa, — so  far  as  any  verdict  or  deliverance  of 
theirs  is  concerned.  I  consider  that  we  have  the  fullest  liberty 
to  sink  new  shafts  in  this  mine,  which  they  evidently  had  not  ex- 
plored, if  only  we  take  care  that  our  diggings  shall  do  no  damage 
to  any  of  the  far  more  important  mines  which  they  did  explore, — 
and  explored  so  thoroughly  and  so  well."  * 

Some  of  the  positions  taken  by  Dr.  Candlish  were 
new,  but  in  the  main  he  and  Prof.  Crawford  simply  re- 
affirm the  Westminster  doctrine  of  the  gracious  Father- 
hood of  God.  Dr.  Candlish  is  certainly  incorrect  in  his 
statement  that  the  Westminster  Confession  is  "  vague 
and  indefinite."  I  think  that  any  one  who  will  read 
such  old  Puritan  writers  as  Francis  Roberts  and  John 
Ball  will  see  that  the  doctrine  of  adoption  was  very 
prominent  in  their  minds.  The  fact,  that  the  West- 
minster Confession  gives  the  doctrine  a  separate  chap- 

*  "  Fatherhood  of  God,"  Edin.,  1867,  pp.  286,  287. 


WHITHER? 

ter,  is  an  evidence  of  their  estimate  of  its  importance. 
Dr.  Candlish  was  looking  at  the  Westminster  Standards 
through  the  glasses  of  his  own  age,  and  was  uncon- 
sciously imputing  to  the  Westminster  divines  the  faults 
of  their  successors  in  the  i8th  century. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God  was  so  neg- 
lected in  the  i8th  century  that,  in  its  modern  revival 
in  the  iQth  century,  it  looked  to  most  people  as  a  new 
doctrine,  and  was  opposed  by  not  a  few  theologians  as  a 
novelty  and  error.  Others  hailed  it  as  a  new  inspiration 
from  heaven.  Mr.  Heard  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that : 

"Among  the  lost  truths  which  the  New  Theology  has  re- 
covered from  oblivion,  there  is  perhaps  none  so  central  and  none 
so  vital  as  that  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God  ;  it  is  the  key-stone 
of  the  arch  on  which  the  whole  theology  of  the  coming  age  is  to 
spring  up."* 

But  Mr.  Heard,  and  others  who  have  preceded  him, 
exaggerate  the  universal  Fatherhood  of  God  in  His  re- 
lation to  our  entire  race,  and  do  not  give  the  gracious 
Fatherhood  of  God  its  proper  value.  The  older  the- 
ologians certainly  failed  in  their  appreciation  of  this  uni- 
versal Fatherhood,  but  they  did  not  fail  in  their  concep- 
tion of  the  gracious  Fatherhood.  The  theology  of  the 
1 8th  century  failed  in  both.  It  is  only  fair  to  state, 
however,  that  some  at  least  of  the  Westminster  divines 
knew  how  to  make  the  proper  distinctions  in  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Fatherhood  of  God.  As  Dr.  A.  F.  Mitchell 
has  well  said  : 

"  The  very  phrase  which  some  suppose  to  be  an  invention  of 
his  (Dr.  Crawford),  or  some  modern  Calvinist,  was  not  unknown 
to  the  divines  of  the  Assembly.  Dr.  Harris,  in  a  sermon  preached 
before  the  House  of  Commons,  from  Luke  xviii.  6,  7,  8,  says : 
'  God's  adversaries  are  in  some  way  his  own.  He  is  a  piece  of  a 


*  "  Old  and  New  Theology,"  p.  82.    Edin. :  T.  &  T.  Clark,  1885. 


146  FAILURES. 

Father  to  them  also.  For  he  is  a  common  Father  by  office  to 
all,  a  special  Father  by  adoption  to  saints,  a  singular  Father  by 
nature  to  Christ.  A  Prince,  besides  his  particular  relation  to  his 
children,  is  pater  Patrice  ....  and  is  good  to  all,  though  with  a 
difference.  So  here,  though  Christ  hath  purchased  a  peculiar 
people  to  himself,  to  the  purpose  of  salvation,  yet  others  taste  of 
his  goodness.' "  * 

SANCTIFICATION. 

The  chapter  on  Sanctification  is  one  of  the  finest  in 
the  Confession.  It  was  framed  over  against  errors  in 
this  department  that  were  then  rampant  in  England, 
and  that  have  ever  since  troubled  the  churches  of  Great 
Britain  and  America.  The  chief  forms  of  error,  as  re- 
gards sanctification,  were  among  the  various  schools  of 
Antinomians.  The  Westminster  definition  of  sanctifica- 
tion is  given  in  chap.  xiii. : 

"  They  who  are  effectually  called  and  regenerated,  having  a 
new  heart  and  a  new  spirit  created  in  them,  are  further  sancti- 
fied, really  and  personally,  through  the  virtue  of  Christ's  death 
and  resurrection,  by  his  word  and  Spirit  dwelling  in  them ;  the 
dominion  of  the  whole  body  of  sin  is  destroyed,  and  the  several 
lusts  thereof  are  more  and  more  weakened  and  mortified,  and 
they  more  and  more  quickened  and  strengthened,  in  all  saving 
graces,  to  the  practice  of  true  holiness,  without  which  no  man 
shall  see  the  Lord. 

"II.  This  sanctification  is  throughout  in  the  whole  man,  yet 
imperfect  in  this  life  :  there  abideth  still  some  remnants  of  cor- 
ruption in  every  part,  whence  ariseth  a  continual  and  irreconcil- 
able war,  the  flesh  lusting  against  the  Spirit,  and  the  Spirit 
against  the  flesh. 

"  III.  In  which  war,  although  the  remaining  corruption  for  a 
time  may  much  prevail,  yet,  through  the  continual  supply  of 
strength  from  the  sanctifying  Spirit  of  Christ,  the  regenerate 
part  doth  overcome :  and  so  the  saints  grow  in  grace,  perfecting 
holiness  in  the  fear  of  God." 


*  "  Minutes  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,"  Introd.  bciii. 


WHITHER? 

The  order  of  salvation  is  the  same  for  every  one  that 
is  redeemed.  The  work  of  sanctification  follows  the  acts 
of  justification  and  adoption.  Sanctification  is  a  work 
that  is  carried  on  by  God  in  a  gradual  process  until  per- 
fect holiness  has  been  attained  by  man.  This  doctrine 
rules  out  the  Antinomian  doctrine  of  immediate  sanctifi- 
cation. Sanctification  is  a  work  carried  on  by  the  divine 
grace  until  its  end  is  accomplished  in  mankind.  It  is 
not  immediate  at  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  life,  it 
cannot  be  immediate  at  any  stage  of  the  Christian  life. 
It  is  not  a  progressive  work  for  a  certain  period  of  time 
and  then  suddenly  transformed  into  an  act,  as  many 
Arminians  and  semi-Arminians  teach.  Some  dogmatic 
divines  are  sound  in  their  advocacy  of  progressive  sanc- 
tification over  against  these  errors  of  Antinomianism  and 
Arminianism ;  but  they  commit  an  error  of  no  less  seri- 
ous consequences  when  they  affirm  that  sanctification 
becomes  immediate  at  death.  The  Confession  makes 
no  such  statement  as  this.  Immediate  sanctification  at 
death  is  an  error  added  on  to  the  orthodox  doctrine  of 
sanctification  that  makes  it  inconsistent,  and  virtually 
destroys  it.  It  is  true  that  the  Confession  states  that 
sanctification  is  "  yet  imperfect  in  this  life,"  and  that 
"without  true  holiness  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord  ";  but 
it  does  not  say  that  man  is  made  perfect  at  the  mo- 
ment of  death.  The  progress  in  sanctification  goes  on 
after  death  in  the  middle  state,  until  it  is  perfected  there, 
and  man  is  prepared  by  the  processes  of  grace  for  the 
final  judgment. 

Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge  also  commits  an  error  when  he  says: 
"  The  inward  means  of  sanctification  is  faith."  *  "  The 
sole  internal  means  or  condition  of  salvation  is  faith  in 


*  "  Commentary  on  Confession  of  Faith,"  p.  266. 


148  FAILURES. 

or  on  Christ."  *  The  Confession  takes  a  different  posi- 
tion. It  does  not  introduce  faith  into  the  definition  of 
sanctification  at  all,  except  so  far  as  it  is  included  in  "  all 
saving  graces,"  in  which  man  is  "  more  and  more  quick- 
ened and  strengthened."  These  saving  graces  are  es- 
pecially "  Saving  Faith  "  and  "  Repentance  unto  Life," 
as  they  are  defined  in  chapters  xiv.  and  xv.  of  the  Confes- 
sion. There  is  reason  to  believe  that  repentance  has  the 
same  relation  to  sanctification  as  faith  has  to  justifica- 
tion. 

Furthermore,  we  take  exception  to  the  strong  state- 
ment that  "  sanctification  is  never  perfected  in  this  life."  f 
The  Confession  simply  states  that  it  is  "  yet  imperfect  in 
this  life."  This  we  believe,  so  far  as  the  past  experience 
of  mankind  is  concerned,  and  also  so  far  as  the  present 
circumstances  of  mankind  are  concerned.  But  the  Con- 
fession does  not  take  the  position  that  "  sanctification 
will  never  be  perfect  in  this  life."  The  time  is  coming, 
as  we  believe,  when  the  Church  and  individual  Christians 
may  be  able  to  attain  that  ideal  of  holiness  in  this  life. 
Entire  sanctification  is  commanded  and  held  up  as  the 
ideal  of  Christianity ;  and  we  must  recognize  that  it  is  a 
possibility  under  divine  grace ;  and  that  possibility  will 
ultimately  be  attained.  To  say  that  it  will  never  be  per- 
fected in  this  life  (i)  paralyzes  all  efforts  for  entire  sanc- 
tification in  this  world  ;  (2)  takes  the  erroneous  position 
that  there  will  be  unsanctified  Christians  on  the  earth  at 
the  day  of  judgment :  (3)  makes  sanctification  an  im- 
mediate act  of  God,  either  at  the  hour  of  death  for  the 
dead,  or  at  the  hour  of  judgment  for  the  living  ;  which 
really  destroys  the  doctrine  of  progressive  sanctification 
altogether.  It  is  not  strange  that  so  little  progress  in 


*  "  Presbyterian  Doctrine,"  p.  27. 

t  C.  Hodge,  /.  c.,  Hi.  245 ;  A.  A.  Hodge,  /.  c.,  p.  265. 


WHITHER  ?  -[4.9 

sanctification  has  been  made  with  these  errors  obstruct- 
ing the  way.  They  must  be  removed  in  order  to  ad- 
vance in  a  holy  life. 

SAVING  FAITH. 

The  chapter  on  Saving  Faith  is  of  great  excellence. 
The  dogmatic  divines  have  so  expended  their  strength 
upon  faith,  as  the  instrument  of  justification ;  and  have 
so  narrowed  and  confined  its  meaning,  in  order  to  avoid 
errors  in  the  doctrine  of  justification  ;  that  they  have 
considered  it  merely  in  its  first  exercise,  as  the  hand 
grasping  the  righteousness  of  God.  One  must  really 
read  such  works  as  John  Ball's  "Treatise  of  Faith,"  and 
Rutherford's  "  Trial  and  Triumph  of  Faith,"  in  order  to 
apprehend  what  were  the  views  of  the  Westminster  di- 
vines on  this  subject.  The  Westminster  definition,  in 
chap,  xiv.,  is  a  model  of  its  kind : 

"  II.  By  this  faith,  a  Christian  believeth  to  be  true,  whatso- 
ever is  revealed  in  the  word,  for  the  authority  of  God  himself 
speaking  therein  ;  and  acteth  differently  upon  that  which  each 
particular  passage  thereof  containeth  ;  yielding  obedience  to  the 
commands,  trembling  at  the  threatenings,  and  embracing  the 
promises  of  God  for  this  life,  and  that  which  is  to  come.  But  the 
principal  acts  of  saving  faith  are,  accepting,  receiving,  and  resting 
upon  Christ  alone  for  justification,  sanctification,  and  eternal 
life,  by  virtue  of  the  covenant  of  grace." 

This  section  of  the  Confession  teaches  that  it  is  the 
same  kind  of  saving  faith  that  recognizes  the  authority 
of  God  Himself  speaking  in  the  Scriptures,  and  that 
accepts  Christ  alone  for  justification,  sanctification, 
and  glorification.  Rutherford  understood  this  when  he 
wrote : 

"  To  the  new  Creature,  there  is  in  Christ's  Word  some  charac- 
ter, some  sound  of  Heaven,  that  is  in  no  voyce  in  the  world,  but 
in  his  only,  in  Christ  represented  to  a  believer's  eye  of  Faith ; 


150  FAILURES. 

there  is  a  shape,  and  a  stampe  of  Divine  Majesty,  no  man  know- 
eth  it,  but  the  believer ;  and  in  Heaven  and  Earth,  Christ  hath 
not  a  Marrow  like  himselfe.  Suppose  there  were  an  hundred 
counterfeit  Moones,  or  fancied  Sunnes  in  the  Heaven,  a  naturall 
eye  can  discerne  the  true  Moone,  and  the  naturall  Sun  from 
them  all ;  the  eye  knoweth  white  not  to  be  blacke,  nor  green. 
Christ  offered  to  the  eye  of  Faith,  stampeth  on  faith's  eye,  speces, 
little  Images  of  Christ,  that  the  soule  dare  goe  to  Death,  and  to 
Hell  with  it ;  this,  this  only  was  Christ,  and  none  other  but  he 
only."* 

How  different  A.  A.  Hodge,  when  he  says  : 

"  Saving  faith  receives  as  true  all  the  contents  of  God's  word, 
without  exception.  After  we  have  settled  the  preliminary  ques- 
tions as  to  what  books  belong  to  the  inspired  canon  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  as  to  what  is  the  original  text  of  those  books,  then  the 
whole  must  be  received  as  equally  the  word  of  God,  and  must  in 
all  its  parts  be  accepted  with  equal  faith,  "t 

The  antithesis  to  the  Confession  here  springs  into  the 
eye.  What  has  Saving  Faith  to  do  with  these  prelim- 
inary questions  of  Biblical  criticism  ?  They  are  in  the 
field  of  scientific  theology.  Saving  Faith  goes  directly 
to  God,  when  the  sacred  writings  are  presented  to  it ; 
it  finds  God  in  them  and  does  not  raise  or  consider 
questions  of  criticism. 

The  next  section  of  the  Confession  also  gives  a  state- 
ment of  vast  importance : 

"  III.  This  faith  is  different  in  degrees,  weak  or  strong ;  may 
be  often  and  many  ways  assailed  and  weakened,  but  gets  the  vic- 
tory ;  growing  up  in  many  to  the  attainment  of  a  full  assurance, 
through  Christ,  who  is  both  the  author  and  finisher  of  our  faith." 

This  doctrine  of  growth  in  saving  faith,  is  one  of  the 
distinguishing  features  of  Calvinism,  and  one  of  the  most 
important  achievements  of  Puritanism.  It  is  based  on 

*  "  Tryal  and  Triumph  of  Faith,"  p.  98.  t  /.  c.,  pp.  279,  280. 


WHITHER? 

the  teachings  of  Jesus  and  His  discrimination  of  the 
several  kinds  of  faith.  It  is  one  of  the  most  practical 
doctrines  for  the  life  and  experience  of  every  Christian. 
And  yet  the  dogmatic  divines  ignore  it,  and  the  minis- 
ters seldom  touch  upon  it.  The  effort  of  the  Church 
seems  to  be  directed  chiefly  to  this,  to  induce  men  to 
simple  justifying  faith,  and  to  get  them  to  begin  the 
Christian  life.  Most  Christians  have  no  conception  of 
the  wonderful  possibilities  of  growth  in  faith,  of  the 
comfort  that  there  is  in  store  for  those  who  are  strong  in 
faith,  the  joy  of  the  victorious  faith,  and  the  holy  peace 
of  those  who  have  attained  a  full  assurance  through  Christ. 
It  is  high  time  for  Christian  teachers  to  raise  the  ban- 
ner of  progressive  religion,  in  which  there  shall  be  an  ad- 
vance in  faith  and  sanctification.  Salvation  is  only  begun 
with  simple  faith  and  justification.  If  these  do  not  ad- 
vance, by  growth  in  faith  and  sanctification,  they  discredit 
themselves  and  excite  doubt  as  to  their  reality  and  vitality. 

REPENTANCE    UNTO   LIFE. 

This  is  one  of  the  most  characteristic  doctrines  of 
Puritanism,  and  one  of  the  most  important  features  of 
Protestant  Christianity,  and  yet  it  has  been  so  neglected 
by  Protestant  divines,  that  Dr.  Charles  Hodge,  in  his 
immense  work  on  "  Systematic  Theology,"  has  no  room 
for  it  at  all.  The  Confession  divides  the  theme  into 
six  sections,  each  of  which  is  a  gem  of  Christian  the- 
ology and  Christian  experience.  But  all  this  is  beyond 
the  range  of  Traditional  Orthodoxy. 

Dr.  Dabney  has  recently  recognized  this  defect.  He 
says  :  "  The  brevity  and  in  some  cases,  neglect  with 
which  this  prominent  subject  is  treated  by  many  sys- 
tems is  surprising  and  reprehensible."  * 

*  "  Theology,"  p.  657. 


152  FAILURES. 

This  doctrine  is  so  fundamental  that  Luther  made  it 
the  first  of  the  theses  he  nailed  upon  the  ancient  church 
door  at  Wittenberg,  as  the  beginning  of  the  Protestant 
Reformation.  "  When  our  Lord  and  Master  Jesus  Christ 
says  repent,  he  means  that  the  whole  life  of  believers 
upon  earth  should  be  a  constant  and  perpetual  repent- 
ance." In  these  words  Luther  struck  the  key-note  of 
the  Reformation  ; — he  gave  the  master  word  that  be- 
gins every  reformation  in  the  life  of  the  individual  and 
every  advance  in  public  religion.  Luther  learned  this 
word  from  the  Bible.  There  are  many  words  that  are 
technical  in  Christian  theology  that  are  not  found  in  the 
Scriptures  ;  but  Repentance  is  all  over  the  Bible,  and  is 
so  plain  that  the  most  ignorant  cannot  escape  it.  On 
this  account,  it  has  exerted  its  influence  upon  Protest- 
ant students  of  the  Bible,  notwithstanding  the  teach- 
ings of  dogmaticians.  There  has,  however,  been  great 
neglect  of  the  doctrine  of  repentance  in  the  modern 
Church.  There  have  been  several  reasons  for  this  state 
of  things.  In  the  time  of  the  Reformation  the  conflict 
was  so  carried  on  that  it  was  necessary  to  separate  faith 
from  works,  and  justification  from  sanctification.  This 
resulted  in  an  evil  tendency  in  Protestantism  that  went 
so  far  as  to  exaggerate  justification  by  faith  only,  and 
to  underrate  sanctification,  repentance,  and  good  works. 
This  narrowing  of  the  original  basis  of  reform  was  the 
chief  reason  why  Staupitz,  the  teacher  of  Luther,  and 
other  evangelical  men  of  his  school,  were  compelled  to 
break  with  Luther  and  his  Reformation. 

The  Puritan  Reformation,  however,  had  as  its  aim  to 
maintain  a  pure  doctrine,  a  pure  church,  and  a  pure  and 
holy  life.  Hence  great  stress  was  laid  upon  repentance. 
But  the  second  Reformation  passed  through  a  similar 
experience  to  the  first  Reformation,  and  its  advance  in 


WHITHER?  153 

Christian  theology  was  abandoned,  and  narrower  views 
prevailed.  Antinomianism  gained  such  ground  in  Great 
Britain  that  Methodism  attacked  Calvinism  itself  as 
essentially  Antinomianism ;  and  the  Marrow  men  were 
ruled  out  by  the  orthodox  in  Scotland.  The  Methodists 
revived  many  of  the  characteristic  features  of  Puritan- 
ism, and  magnified  the  doctrines  of  sanctification  and 
repentance.  Jonathan  Edwards  is  noteworthy  for  the 
stress  he  lays  upon  these  topics.  But  the  anti-Method- 
ists resisted  these  doctrines  and  insisted  upon  the  nar- 
rower scholastic  divinity.* 

Methodism  greatly  emphasized  the  doctrine  of  re- 
generation, and  so  exaggerated  the  conviction  of  sin, 
that  the  holy  life  of  repentance  that  followed  them, 
was  again  neglected,  and  the  dogmaticians  led  the 
ministry  and  the  people  back  to  the  narrower  views 
of  the  older  scholastic  divines.  There  can  be  no  real 
revival,  no  solid  progress  in  theology,  that  does  not 
begin  with  repentance.  What  is  faith  alone  worth  at 
the  beginning  of  a  Christian  life,  if  it  is  not  followed 
by  repentance  that  governs  the  whole  life?  What  is 
the  benefit  of  justification  if  it  does  not  open  the 
door  to  sanctification  ?  Why  should  a  man  be  regen- 
erated if  he  is  not  to  grow  in  grace  ?  Why  go 
through  the  agonies  of  conviction  of  sin  if  he  is  not  to 
battle  against  sin  until  it  is  entirely  put  away?  Re- 
pentance and  sanctification  govern  the  whole  life  of  the 
Christian  from  the  first  moment  of  conversion  until 
the  day  of  ultimate  judgment.  Progressive  Chris- 
tianity must  overcome  these  faults  of  orthodoxism, 
and  by  a  reaffirmation  of  repentance  begin  a  new  ref- 
ormation that  will  take  up  the  work  which  the  earlier 


*  Briggs'  "  American  Presbyterianism,"  pp.  238  seq. 


FAILURES. 

reformations  left  incomplete,  and  carry  it  on  to  perfec- 
tion. 

GOOD  WORKS. 

The  Westminster  Confession  adheres  to  the  Protest- 
ant doctrine  of  good  works,  making  those  careful 
definitions  and  distinctions  that  divide  the  Reformed 
Churches  from  the  Church  of  Rome.  It  is  a  very  re- 
markable development  in  modern  Protestantism,  tfiat 
the  principle  of  evangelical  freedom  should  be  so  gen- 
erally abandoned  with  its  doctrines  of  repentance,  sanc- 
tification,  and  holy  love  ;  and  that  a  puritanical  and 
scholastic  legalism  should  have  arisen  in  its  place,  in 
which  the  sense  of  duty  and  obligation  to  the  law  of 
God  dominate  the  Christian 4ife.  The  Westminster  Con- 
fession (chap,  xvi.)  states  that : 

"  Good  works  are  only  such  as  God  hath  commanded  in  his 
holy  word,  and  not  such  as,  without  the  warrant  thereof,  are  de- 
vised by  men  out  of  blind  zeal,  or  upon  any  pretence  of  good 
intention." 

It  needs  but  a  slight  familiarity  with  the  history  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  the  reading  of  the  Digest  of  the 
General  Assembly,  or  attendance  upon  any  General  As- 
sembly in  recent  years,  to  convince  any  one  that  the 
General  Assembly  has  repeatedly  violated  this  section 
of  the  Constitution,  by  prohibiting  certain  things  that 
are  not  prohibited  by  the  Word  of  God,  and  by  com- 
manding what  the  sacred  Scriptures  do  not  command. 
The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  was  di- 
vided on  the  question  of  the  sin  of  slavery.  The 
Southern  Presbyterian  Church  was  certainly  correct  in 
the  position,  that  slavery  is  not  forbidden  in  the  Word 
of  God ;  and  that,  therefore,  according  to  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  the  General  Assem- 


WHITHER?  155 

bly  had  no  right  to  forbid  it.  Every  Act  against  slavery 
in  the  minutes  of  the  General  Assemblies  has  been  a 
violation  of  this  section  of  the  Westminster  Confession. 
The  Presbyterian  Church  is  not  agreed  on  the  ques- 
tion of  total  abstinence  from  intoxicating  drinks.  Cer- 
tainly the  sacred  Scriptures  do  not  prescribe  total  ab- 
stinence, and  therefore  the  Presbyterian  Church  has  no 
right  to  prescribe  it.  Every  deliverance  of  General  As- 
semblies in  favor  of  total  abstinence  has  violated  this 
law  of  the  Confession  of  Faith.  Dr.  Charles  Hodge 
correctly  expounded  the  Confession  when  he  said : 

"  Nothing  that  the  Bible  pronounces  true  can  be  false  ;  nothing 
that  it  declares  to  be  false  can  be  true ;  nothing  is  obligatory  on 
the  conscience  but  what  it  enjoins  ;  nothing  can  be  sin  but  what 
it  condemns.  If,  therefore,  the  Scriptures  under  the  Old  Dispen- 
sation permitted  men  to  hold  slaves,  and  if  the  New  Testament 
nowhere  condemns  slave-holding,  but  prescribes  the  relative 
duties  of  masters  and  slaves,  then  to  pronounce  slave-holding  to  be 
in  itself  sinful  is  contrary  to  the  Scriptures.  In  like  manner,  if  the 
Bible  nowhere  condemns  the  use  of  intoxicating  liquors  as  a  bev- 
erage, if  our  Lord  himself  drank  wine,  then  to  say  that  all  use  of  in- 
toxicating liquor  as  a  beverage  is  sin,  is  only  one  of  the  many  forms 
of  the  infidelity  of  benevolence.  It  is  as  much  contrary  to  our 
allegiance  to  the  Bible  to  make  our  own  notions  of  right  or  wrong 
the  rule  of  duty  as  to  make  our  own  reason  the  rule  of  faith."  * 

It  would  not  be  difficult  to  find  other  examples  of 
this  modern  spirit  of  legalism  that  has  taken  possession 
of  synods,  General  Assemblies,  and  eminent  Presbyte- 
rian divines,  and  impelled  them  to  violate  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith.  Doubtless  these  men  had  "  good  inten- 
tion," and  in  some  cases  at  least  these  actions  were 
"  devised  by  men  out  of  blind  zeal  ";  but  these  do  not 
constitute  valid  grounds  for  definitions  of  good  works. 


*  A.  A.  Hodge,  "  Life  of  Charles  Hodge,"  p.  334.     N.  Y. :  Charles  Scribner's 
Sons. 


156  FAILURES. 

I  shall  not  discuss  the  right  or  wrong  of  slavery  or 
total  abstinence  or  any  other  of  these  questions  of 
morals  and  casuistry.  The  point  I  have  to  make  is  that 
the  Westminster  standards  make  the  Word  of  God  the 
sole  arbiter  of  good  works.  This  Protestant  position 
was  taken  over  against  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine, 
that  the  Church  could  frame  a  code  of  morals,  and  that 
there  were  counsels  of  perfection  in  addition  to  divine 
commands.  In  my  opinion  the  Westminster  statement 
is  too  strict  here.  There  are  good  works  other  than 
those  that  "  God  hath  commanded  in  his  holy  word," 
and  there  are  sins  not  "  forbidden  in  the  sacred  Scrip- 
tures." The  Westminster  divines  themselves,  in  their 
exposition  of  the  Ten  Commands  in  the  Larger  Cate- 
chism, exceed  the  specifications  of  Scripture,  and  violate 
their  own  rule.  There  are  general  principles  of  Chris- 
tian ethics  given  in  the  Scriptures  that  lead  to  a  higher 
Christian  morality  in  our  century  than  was  possible  to 
the  Christian  mind  several  centuries  ago.  Doubtless  the 
coming  centuries  will  have  enlightened  consciences  that 
will  be  far  beyond  our  highest  conceptions  of  Christian 
holiness.  All  this  ethical  progress  is  stimulated  and 
guided  by  the  Scripture.  But  these  higher  ethical  pre- 
cepts are  not  laid  down  in  the  Scripture,  and  cannot  be 
required  of  men  on  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures. 

There  is  also  an  element  of  truth  in  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic distinction  between  divine  commands  and  counsels 
of  perfection,  which  is  based  on  the  teachings  of  Jesus 
and  of  Paul,  that  does  not  involve  the  Roman  Catholic 
heresy  of  works  of  supererogation.  The  school  of  Stau- 
pitz  rightly  recognized  this  distinction,  and  the  Luther- 
ans erred  in  rejecting  it.  The  Church  did  not  err  for 
fifteen  centuries  in  this  distinction.  All  men  are  not 
required  to  make  the  sacrifices  for  Christ  that  some  are 


WHITHER?  157 

glad  to  make  under  the  call  and  grace  of  God.  There 
are  grades  in  Christian  perfection.  There  is  no  dead 
level  in  the  holy  life.  Protestantism  should  reopen  this 
question,  and  use  this  ancient  distinction  in  its  own 
scheme  of  Christian  ethics. 

The  modern  Presbyterian  Church  has  departed  from 
the  Westminster  divines  in  its  standard  of  morals  and 
good  works,  and  there  is  lack  of  definite  views  among 
the  ministry  and  the  theologians  in  the  whole  depart- 
ment of  Christian  ethics.  The  whole  doctrine  of  Sanc- 
tification  is  in  confusion. 

THE  ASSURANCE   OF  GRACE 

We  pass  over  the  chapter  on  the  perseverance  of  the 
saints,  with  the  simple  remark  that  this  chapter  has  not 
been  neglected  by  the  dogmaticians.  They  have  battled 
over  it  on  account  of  its  connection  with  the  doctrine  of 
election  and  predestination.  At  the  same  time,  they 
have  not  given  the  doctrine  its  proper  place  between 
repentance  and  good  works  on  the  one  side  and  assur- 
ance of  grace  on  the  other.  With  undue  stress  on  the 
doctrine  of  perseverance,  there  has  been  a  strange  neg- 
lect of  the  doctrine  of  assurance.  This  has  been  the 
result  of  the  neglect  of  the  degrees  of  faith  in  the  doc- 
trine of  saving  faith,  and  of  repentance  and  sanctifica- 
tion.  A  Methodist  minister  some  years  ago  insisted  to 
me  that  Presbyterians  did  not  believe  in  the  doctrine  of 
assurance.  I  could  hardly  convince  him  by  reading  to 
him  the  statement  of  the  Confession  of  Faith.  He  said 
that  he  had  never  met  a  Presbyterian  who  believed  the 
doctrine ;  that  Presbyterians  only  hoped  they  were  saved, 
but  were  never  assured  of  their  salvation.  My  observa- 
tion and  inquiries  have  led  me  to  the  opinion,  that  in  the 
main  the  Methodist  minister  was  correct.  The  ministry 


158  FAILURES. 

and  people  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  have  not  as  a  rule 
sought  assurance  of  grace  and  salvation  as  it  has  ever 
been  their  privilege  and  duty  to  do.  The  Reformed 
doctrine  that  4<  this  infallible  assurance  doth  not  so  be- 
long to  the  essence  of  faith,  but  that  a  true  believer  may 
wait  long,  and  conflict  with  many  difficulties  before  he  be 
partaker  of  it  "  (xviii.  3) :  has  induced  the  mass  of  Pres- 
byterians to  rest  content  with  the  possession  of  simple 
justifying  faith.  They  have  not  realized  the  grace  of 
adoption  and  "  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  of  adoption  "; 
they  have  not  advanced  in  the  grace  of  sanctification  and 
so  have  not  "  the  inward  evidences  of  those  graces  unto 
which  these  promises  are  made." 

THE   LAW  OF  GOD. 

The  chapter  on  the  Law  of  God  gives  the  general 
principles  upon  which  the  Law  of  God  is  interpreted. 
The  interpretation  itself  is  not  given  in  the  Confession, 
but  in  the  Larger  Catechism.  Dr.  Charles  Hodge,  in  his 
"  Systematic  Theology,"  follows  the  Larger  Catechism, 
but  does  not  consider  the  principles  laid  down  in  the 
Confession.  The  Confession  teaches  that  the  moral  law 
contained  in  the  Ten  Commands  is  of  perpetual  obliga- 
tion, but  that  "  all  the  ceremonial,  political,  and  judicial 
laws  of  the  Old  Testament  have  been  abrogated."  The 
law  of  the  Ten  Commands  is  the  only  Old  Testament 
law  that  is  binding  on  Christians.  Those  ministers  and 
theologians  who  teach  that  any  other  laws  of  the  Old 
Testament  legislation  are  binding,  whether  contained  in 
the  priest  code,  the  deuteronomic  code,  or  the  covenant 
codes,  transgress  this  principle  of  the  Confession.  There 
is  a  large  amount  of  transgression  of  the  Confession  at 
this  point,  especially  in  the  sermonic  literature. 

The  uses  of  the  law  are  very  carefully  defined  in  an 


WHITHER?  159 

evangelical  manner.  The  law  is  a  rule  of  life  informing 
us  of  the  will  of  God,  discovering  our  sins,  and  showing 
us  the  rewards  and  penalties  of  obedience  and  disobedi- 
ence— but  it  is  not  as  a  covenant  of  works  to  justify  or 
condemn :  for  "  the  spirit  of  Christ  subduing  and  en- 
abling the  will  of  man  to  do  that  freely  and  cheerfully, 
which  the  will  of  God,  revealed  in  the  law,  requireth  to 
be  done  "  (xix.  7). 

These  principles  are  excellent,  but  the  Larger  Cate- 
chism, by  its  undue  elaboration  of  the  Ten  Commands, 
sets  an  example  for  Protestant  legalists  to  follow;  so 
that,  it  is  to  be  feared  evangelical  liberty  has  too  often 
been  swallowed  up  in  legal  obligation. 

CHRISTIAN  LIBERTY. 

The  chapter  on  Christian  Liberty  is  in  some  respects 
the  noblest  part  of  the  Confession  of  Faith.  In  it  are 
wrapt  up  the  experiences  of  a  century  of  struggle  for 
liberty  of  conscience.  It  involves  the  principles  upon 
which  British  Christianity  has  unfolded  since  the  i/th 
century. 

This  Christian  Liberty  is  based  on  freedom  from  the 
guilt  of  sin,  from  bondage  to  the  law,  from  the  dominion 
of  sin  and  "  boldness  of  access  to  the  throne  of  grace 
and  in  fuller  communications  of  the  free  Spirit  of  God." 
On  this  freedom  of  sonship  is  based  the  great  Puritan 
principle : 

"  God  alone  is  Lord  of  the  conscience,  and  hath  left  it  free  from 
the  doctrines  and  commandments  of  men,  which  are  in  anything 
contrary  to  his  word,  or  beside  it  in  matters  of  faith  or  worship. 
So  that  to  believe  such  doctrines,  or  to  obey  such  command- 
ments out  of  conscience,  is  to  betray  true  liberty  of  conscience ; 
and  the  requiring  an  implicit  faith  and  an  absolute  obedience,  is 
to  destroy  liberty  of  conscience,  and  reason  also  "  (xx.  2). 


160  FAILURES. 

If  these  noble  words  had  been  heeded,  history  would 
not  have  recorded  those  sad  divisions  that  have  dis- 
tracted Presbyterianism  and  retarded  its  growth.  The 
conflicts  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  and  the  divisions 
that  have  resulted  therefrom,  have  been  due  to  the  efforts 
of  dogmaticians  and  ecclesiastics,  who  have  endeavored 
to  make  their  private  opinions,  or  the  tenets  of  their 
party,  the  laws  of  the  Church  and  the  tests  of  orthodoxy. 

The  conscience  of  a  child  of  God  cannot  be  bound 
by  anything  that  God  Himself  does  not  speak  in  His 
Holy  Word  to  the  believer  himself.  This  makes  the 
Scriptures,  or  rather  God  in  the  Scriptures,  the  only 
arbiter.* 

Those  who  exalt  the  Confession  of  Faith  above  the 
Scriptures,  transgress  the  doctrine  of  the  Confession 
itself,  which  limits  its  authority  to  those  things  in  which 
it  is  in  accord  with  the  Scriptures.  Those  who  exalt 
their  school  of  theology  above  the  Scriptures  and  the 
Confession,  sin  against  both  Confession  and  Scripture ; 
and  this  is  practically  the  sin  that  a  large  proportion  of 
Presbyterian  ministers  are  unconsciously  committing  at 
the  present  time.  If  this  principle  of  Christian  liberty 
were  followed,  the  systems  of  divinity  now  in  use  would 
sink  in  value,  the  ministry  would  again  expound  the 
Confession  and  give  more  attention  to  the  study  of  the 
Scriptures.  If  this  principle  were  followed  still  further, 
the  Confession  itself  would  be  found  to  be  even  more 
inadequate  as  an  expression  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible 
than  the  Westminster  divines  themselves  could  imagine. 
They  revised  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England  and 
made  a  new  Confession.  It  is  hardly  probable  that  they 
supposed  that  their  descendants  would  wait  two  cen- 


*  This  statement  is  in  entire  concord  with  chap.  i.  10. 


WHITHER? 

turies  and  a  half  without  any  attempt  at  a  thorough  re- 
vision of  their  Confession,  or  an  effort  to  make  a  new 
one  in  its  stead. 

RELIGIOUS  WORSHIP. 

The  Westminster  divines  were  very  anxious  to  reform 
the  worship  of  God's  people  in  accordance  with  the 
Word  of  God.  They  gave  great  attention  to  this  mat- 
ter in  their  Directory  for  Worship.  They  laid  down  the 
general  principles  of  worship  in  the  Confession.* 

They  also  strongly  urged  the  observance  of  the  Sab- 
bath. This  was  one  of  the  chief  marks  of  the  Puritan 
party  in  the  Church  of  England. f  We  have  already 
observed  that  the  modern  Presbyterians  have  entirely 
changed  their  attitude  in  this  matter  of  worship4  This 
change  is  evident  also  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Sabbath. 
The  Puritan  doctrine  of  the  Confession  was  hardened 
into  a  puritanical  doctrine.  The  Puritan  doctrine  of 
the  Sabbath  rested  upon  the  words  of  Moses  and  Jesus 
that  the  day  was  essentially  a  day  of  worship ;  to  which 
abstinence  from  labor,  and  rest  must  yield  as  subordinate 
principles.  But  the  puritanical  theory  of  the  Sabbath, 
that  still  prevails  in  some  quarters,  reiterates  the  Phar- 
isaic doctrine  of  the  Sabbath,  and  makes  abstinence 
from  labor  the  most  important  thing,  and  vexes  the  min- 
istry and  people  with  numberless  questions  of  casuistry. 

The  chapters  on  Lawful  Oaths  and  Vows  is  another 
chapter  under  the  head  of  worship.  The  doctrine  of 
oaths  is  maintained  over  against  the  various  Societies 
of  Friends  and  Anabaptists.  The  doctrine  of  vows  is 
also  based  upon  the  sacred  Scriptures.  The  Confession 
opposes  "  Popish  "  vows,  but  urges  the  evangelical  vow. 


*  Chap.  xxi.  t  Briggs'  "  American  Presbyterianism,"  pp.  48  seg. 

I  See  also  pp.  48  seg. 


162  FAILURES. 

"  It  is  not  to  be  made  to  any  creature,  but  to  God  alone :  and 
that  it  may  be  accepted,  it  is  to  be  made  voluntarily,  out  of  faith 
and  conscience  of  duty,  in  way  of  thankfulness  for  mercy  received, 
or  for  obtaining  of  what  we  want ;  whereby  we  more  strictly 
bind  ourselves  to  necessary  duties,  or  to  other  things,  so  far  and 
so  long  as  they  may  fitly  conduce  thereunto  "  (xxii.  6). 

There  are  two  parties  in  the  Church  at  the  present 
time.  The  one  party  makes  great  use  of  the  vow,  as  in 
Total  Abstinence,  in  the  White  Cross  movement,  and  in 
the  Christian  Endeavor  Society.  Whatever  may  be  said 
as  to  their  excessive  use  of  the  Vow,  they  are  certainly 
not  in  conflict  with  the  Westminster  Confession,  or  the 
sacred  Scriptures  in  their  doctrine  of  the  vow.  The  only 
question  we  can  raise  is  whether  the  vows  they  propose 
are  proper  vows. 

There  is  another  party  that  is  so  hostile  to  such  vows 
as  these  that  they  oppose  all  vows,  even  those  that  are 
usually  taken  at  confirmation  and  at  the  sacrament  of 
the  Lord's  Supper.  This  party  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church  is  in  plain  transgression  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
vow  in  the  Confession  of  Faith. 

We  have  gone  over  the  eleven  chapters  that  make  up 
the  central  section  of  the  Westminster  Confession.  We 
have  seen  a  general  neglect  of  these  precious  doctrines 
by  the  Traditional  Orthodoxy.  The  current  Orthodox- 
ism  has  fallen  sadly  short  of  the  Westminster  ideal.  As 
it  erred  by  excessive  definition  in  the  first  eleven  chap- 
ters, it  has  erred  by  a  general  failure  in  the  second  eleven 
chapters,  so  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  at  the  present 
time  is  at  an  angle  with  its  Confession  of  Faith ;  and 
subscription  to  the  Westminster  system  in  the  historic 
sense  is  out  of  the  question. 


CHAPTER   VII. 
DEPARTURES. 

WE  have  seen  that  in  the  first  eleven  chapters  of  the 
Westminster  Confession  modern  Traditionalism  errs 
chiefly  by  excessive  definition  ;  that  in  the  second  group 
of  eleven  chapters  orthodoxism  errs  by  failure  and  neglect ; 
we  shall  now  find  in  the  last  group  of  eleven  chapters 
errors  in  the  direction  of  heterodoxy,  meaning  by  hetero- 
doxy, doctrines  that  depart  from  those  set  forth  in  these 
chapters  of  the  Confession.  We  might  express  the  dif- 
ferences in  more  technical  language  by  saying  that  in 
the  first  eleven  chapters,  orthodoxism  is  extra-confes- 
sional ;  in  the  second  eleven  chapters,  infra-confessional ; 
and  in  the  third  eleven  chapters,  contra-confessional. 
The  chapters  of  this  group  are  as  follows  : 

XXIII.  Of  the  Civil  Magistrate.    4  sections. 

XXIV.  Of  Marriage  and  Divorce.     6  sections. 
XXV.  Of  the  Church.    6  sections. 

XXVI.  Of  the  Communion  of  Saints.    3  sections. 
XXVII.  Of  the  Sacraments.     5  sections. 
XXVIII.  Of  Baptism.    7  sections. 
XXIX.  Of  the  Lord's  Supper.    8  sections. 
XXX.  Of  Church  Censures.    4  sections. 
XXXI.  Of  Synods  and  Councils.    4  sections. 
XXXII.  Of  the  State  of  Man  after  Death  and  of  the  Resur- 
rection of  the  Dead.    3  sections. 
XXXIII.  Of  the  Last  Judgment.    3  sections. 
Total  of  53  sections. 

We  shall  consider  nine  of  these  in  this  chapter,  re- 

(163) 


164  DEPARTURES. 

serving  the  last  two  chapters  of  the  Confession  for  sep. 
arate  discussion. 

CHURCH  AND  STATE. 

The  American  Presbyterian  Church  entirely  revised 
the  chapter  of  the  Confession  relating  to  the  Christian 
magistrate.  It  also  expunged  from  the  Confession  (xx.  4) 
the  clause,  "  and  by  the  power  of  the  civil  magistrate." 
This  section  combines  Church  and  State  in  the  previous 
context : 

"  They  who,  upon  pretence  of  Christian  liberty,  shall  oppose 
any  lawful  power,  or  the  lawful  exercise  of  it,  whether  it  be  civil 
or  ecclesiastical,  resist  the  ordinance  of  God.  And  for  their  pub- 
lishing of  such  opinions,  or  maintaining  of  such  practices  as  are 
contrary  to  the  light  of  nature  or  to  the  known  principles  of 
Christianity,  whether  concerning  faith,  worship,  or  conversation  ; 
or  to  the  power  of  godliness ;  or  such  erroneous  opinions  or  prac- 
tices as  either  in  their  own  nature  or  in  the  manner  of  publish- 
ing or  maintaining  them,  are  destructive  of  the  external  peace  and 
order  which  Christ  hath  established  in  the  Church;  they  may  law- 
fully be  called  to  account,  and  proceeded  against  by  the  censures 
of  the  Church  [and  by  the  power  of  the  civil  magistrate],"  (xx.  4). 

The  section  as  amended  leaves  to  the  Church  the 
right  to  proceed  against  all  those  who  oppose  the  civil 
authority  by  rebellion  or  by  violations  of  civil  law,  but 
does  not  recognize  the  right  of  the  civil  magistrate  to 
act  either  in  civil  or  in  ecclesiastical  matters.  It  justifies 
all  the  so-called  civil  declarations  of  the  Northern  Gen- 
eral Assemblies,  and  is  against  the  doctrine  of  the  South- 
ern Presbyterian  Church.  But  the  doctrine  of  the  Con- 
fession ought  to  be  so  stated  that  the  civil  government 
should  be  recognized  in  its  legitimate  sphere,  and  the 
boundaries  of  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  government 
should  be  defined.  The  American  Episcopal  Church  give 
the  doctrine  in  much  better  form  in  the  article: 


WHITHER  ? 

"  The  power  of  the  civil  magistrate  extendeth  to  all  men^  as 
well  clergy  as  laity,  in  all  things  temporal,  but  hath  no  authority 
in  things  purely  spiritual.  And  we  hold  it  to  be  the  duty  of  all 
men  who  are  professors  of  the  Gospel,  to  pay  respectful  obedi- 
ence to  the  civil  authority,  regularly  and  legitimately  consti- 
tuted "  (xxxvii.). 

The  American  Presbyterians  in  this  matter  departed 
from  the  doctrine  of  the  Westminster  Confession  and 
the  practice  of  the  Presbyterian  Churches  of  the  Old 
World  ;  they  exclude  the  civil  magistrate  from  interfer- 
ence with  violations  of  civil  as  well  as  ecclesiastical  au- 
thority. But  it  certainly  was  not  meant  to  imply  that 
the  civil  magistrate  had  no  authority  over  violations  of 
civil  authority.  They  did  not  notice  that  this  error  would 
result  from  their  omission.  It  was  designed  to  exclude 
the  civil  authority  from  interfering  with  violations  of 
religious  doctrines  and  customs.  But  what  shall  we  say 
to  the  punishment  of  a  Jew  for  the  violation  of  the  Chris- 
tian Sabbath,  or  of  the  punishment  of  an  infidel  for 
blasphemy,  or  of  a  Mormon  or  Mohammedan  for  polyg- 
amy, or  of  a  Protestant  for  disobedience  to  the  ecclesi- 
astical doctrine  of  marriage  and  divorce  ?  If  the  Eng- 
lish common  law  rules  in  the  United  States,  and  that 
makes  us  a  Christian  nation,  there  are  some  restrictions 
upon  this  exclusion  of  the  civil  magistrate  from  the 
sphere  of  religious  beliefs  and  practices. 

The  American  doctrine  of  Church  and  State  comes 
out  more  distinctly  in  the  substitution  made  for  xxiii.  3 
and  xxxi.  i  of  the  Westminster  Confession.  In  the  first 
of  these,  the  relation  of  the  civil  magistrate  to  the 
Church  is  defined.  The  Synod  agreed  with  the  West- 
minster divines  that  the  civil  magistrate  should  not  as- 
sume the  administration  of  the  Word  and  sacraments 
or  discipline.  The  American  Synod  add, — a  statement 


166  DEPARTURES. 

of  what  the  civil  magistrate  might  not  do, — "  or  in  the 
least  interfere  in  matters  of  faith." 

The  Westminster  divines  taught  the  doctrine  of  an 
established  national  Church.  Accordingly,  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  magistrate 

"To  take  order,  that  unity  and  peace  be  preserved  in  the 
Church,  that  the  truth  of  God  be  kept  pure  and  entire,  that  all 
blasphemies  and  heresies  be  suppressed,  all  corruptions  and 
abuses  in  worship  and  discipline  prevented  or  reformed ;  and  all 
the  ordinances  of  God  duly  settled,  administered,  and  observed  " 
(xxiii.  3). 

When  the  American  Synod  removed  this  doctrine 
from  our  Standards,  they  made  a  radical  departure  in 
faith  and  practice.  The  doctrines  of  one  national  Church, 
of  national  religion,  of  unity  of  doctrine  and  worship,  of 
the  support  of  the  Church  by  the  State,  and  the  use  of 
its  strong  arm  in  its  behalf — all  these  doctrines  of  the 
ages  were  swept  away  at  once.  Instead  of  them,  the 
American  Synod  recognized  a  variety  of  denominations 
of  Christians  with  equal  rights,  liberty  of  religious  opinion 
and  practice,  and  abandoned  civil  support  and  a  national 
religion.  This  is  the  significant  language  in  which  they 
set  forth  these  new  doctrines  : 

"Yet  as  nursing  fathers,  it  is  the  duty  of  civil  magistrates  to 
protect  the  Church  of  our  common  Lord,  without  giving  the 
preference  to  any  denomination  of  Christians  above  the  rest,  in 
such  a  manner  that  all  ecclesiastical  persons  whatever  shall  enjoy 
the  full,  free,  and  unquestioned  liberty  of  discharging  every  part 
of  their  sacred  functions,  without  violence  or  danger  "  (xxiii.  3). 

They  not  only  took  ground  against  a  national  estab- 
lishment of  religion,  but  also  advanced  to  the  position, 
(i)  that  there  should  be  no  establishment  of  religion  in 
any  of  the  sovereign  States  of  the  Republic,  and  (2) 
that  there  should  be  no  legislation  of  those  States  in 


WHITHER? 

favor  of  any  denomination  or  against  any  denomination, 
but  that  (3)  there  should  be  entire  religious  equality 
under  the  law. 

The  idea  of  the  unity  of  the  Church  and  the  value  of 
a  national  religion  have  been  overlooked  by  American 
Christians.  They  have  not  been  able  to  appreciate  the 
immense  advantages  that  come  to  a  nation  in  which 
these  great  ideas  are  prominent  in  the  minds  of  the  peo- 
ple. It  is  only  in  recent  years  that  Americans  are  awak- 
ing to  the  importance  of  these  considerations. 

There  is  at  least  one  body  of  Christians  in  whom  these 
ideals  are  regarded  as  essential  doctrine.  The  Roman 
Catholic  Church  can  never  consent  to  the  American 
Protestant  doctrine  of  the  separation  of  Church  and 
State.  In  so  far  as  the  American  States  have  adopted 
this  doctrine,  they  have  proclaimed  a  doctrine  and  have 
established  a  practice  that  are  against  the  fundamental 
principles  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  It  is  not 
true,  therefore,  that  our  State  Governments  are  non- 
committal on  the  doctrines  in  dispute  between  the 
Churches.  They  have  "interfered  in  matters  of  faith" 
for  this  doctrine  of  the  union  of  Church  and  State  is  as 
much  a  matter  of  faith  as  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity  or 
Justification  by  Faith.  They  could  not  do  otherwise. 
They  were  obliged  to  take  a  decided  position  on  one 
side  of  this  great  question  of  Christendom.  They  have 
in  fact  rejected  the  doctrine  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  and  also  the  doctrine  of  all  the  Established 
Churches  of  Europe,  as  to  the  relation  of  Church  and 
State,  and  they  have  adopted  the  doctrine  of  the  Ameri- 
can Protestant  denominations.  The  States  are  there- 
fore in  this  respect  really  Protestant  States,  and  indeed 
American  Protestant  States. 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  will  make  strong  and 


168  DEPARTURES. 

persistent  efforts  to  overcome  this  Protestant  feature  of 
our  State  Governments.  It  will  continue  this  struggle, 
with  the  end  in  view  of  establishing  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic Church  as  the  religion  of  the  States.  It  will  aim  to 
secure  legislation  in  favor  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church, 
and  against  Protestantism.  Religious  equality,  freedom 
of  worship,  and  co-ordination  of  different  denominations 
destructive  of  the  unity  and  authority  of  the  Church, 
will  never  be  permitted  by  Rome  if  she  can  help  it.  She 
cannot  recognize  the  toleration  of  such  doctrines  by  the 
State.  We  ought  not  to  blame  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  for  her  political  efforts.  She  cannot  do  other- 
wise without  renouncing  her  fundamental  doctrines. 

The  difficulties  that  Protestantism  has  to  contend 
with  here,  are  very  great.  If  there  is  anything  in  a  na- 
tional religion  and  the  unity  of  the  Church  of  Jesus 
Christ,  it  is  high  time  that  American  Protestantism 
should  rise  to  the  situation,  grasp  the  problem,  and  en- 
deavor to  solve  it.  The  ideals  of  Christian  unity  and  a 
national  religion  are  rising  into  greater  prominence  in 
American  Christianity. 

The  good  fruits  of  the  work  of  the  Synod  of  1788  are 
many.  Protestantism  has  had  its  golden  period  of 
blessed  opportunities.  The  Protestant  Churches  have 
grown  with  wonderful  rapidity  in  the  use  of  the  free- 
dom, religious  equality,  and  protection  that  have  been 
guaranteed  to  them.  All  of  the  American  denomina- 
tions have  shown  that  a  free  Church  in  a  free  State  has 
greater  powers  of  expansion,  has  greater  facilities  for 
keeping  itself  pure  and  sound,  than  any  established 
Church  has  ever  exhibited.  At  the  same  time  this  ex- 
pansion is  at  the  cost  of  an  immense  amount  of  friction 
and  waste,  and  these  efforts  to  preserve  a  sound  doc- 
trine and  uniformity  of  government  and  worship,  resuli 


WHITHER?  169 

in  the  multiplication  of  denominations,  and  the  perpetu- 
ation of  errors  in  doctrine,  government,  and  worship,  in 
organized  societies  outside  the  older  denominations. 

But  notwithstanding  all  the  good  effects  of  the  sepa- 
ration of  Church  and  State,  no  thinking  man  can  con- 
template the  present  situation  without  alarm.  It  is 
clear  that  there  cannot  be  an  absolute  separation  of 
Church  and  State.  There  are  a  large  number  of  the 
most  important  interests  that  are  common  to  the 
Church  and  the  State,  such  as  marriage  and  divorce, 
education,  religious  days,  public  oaths  and  prayers,  and 
the  like.  On  all  of  these  questions  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic Church  has  a  well-defined  doctrine,  and  works  upon 
a  uniform  theory.  Protestantism  is  sadly  divided,  and 
is  at  a  great  disadvantage  in  the  discussion.  What  is 
the  best  course  to  pursue  ?  Is  the  American  doctrine 
of  Church  and  State  to  be  advanced  so  as  to  do  away 
with  a  national  religion,  even  in  the  general  and  hazy 
sense  in  which  it  can  now  be  maintained  that  we  are  a 
Christian  nation  ?  Or  is  the  American  idea  to  give  way 
to  the  Roman  Catholic,  and  are  we  in  the  future  to  see 
one  State  after  another  establishing  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic Church?  There  is  nothing  to  prevent  such  action 
except  a  sufficient  majority  of  the  people  to  vote  down 
any  such  amendments  to  the  State  Constitutions,  if  they 
should  be  proposed.  If  neither  of  these  extremes  is  to 
be  taken,  it  would  seem  to  be  necessary  to  make  a  bet- 
ter definition  of  the  relation  of  Church  and  State  than 
that  given  us  by  the  Presbyterian  Synod  of  1788.  Their 
revision  in  this  clause,  as  in  the  other,  was  altogether  too 
sweeping.  It  needs  limitation  and  restrictions,  if  faith 
and  practice  are  to  correspond. 

According  to  the  Westminster  divines,  synods  or 
councils  could  meet  only  when  called  by  the  civil  au- 


170  DEPARTURES. 

thority,  which  was  to  be  present  at  them,  and  provide 
that  whatever  was  transacted  in  them  should  be  ac- 
cording to  the  mind  of  God.  They  were  to  meet  on 
their  own  authority  only  when  the  magistrates  were 
open  enemies  to  the  Church.  According  to  the  Ameri- 
can doctrine,  the  synods  and  councils  are  to  meet 
together  under  the  authority  and  call  of  the  author- 
ities of  the  Churches,  and  the  civil  magistrate  has 
nothing  to  do  with  them.  "  No  law  in  any  common- 
wealth should  interfere  with,  let,  or  hinder  the  due 
exercise  thereof  among  the  voluntary  members  of  any 
denomination  of  Christians,  according  to  their  own  pro- 
fession and  belief."  The  duty  of  the  magistrate  is  to 
protect  them,  and  prevent  interference  by  others.  Thus 
the  Church  is  sovereign,  and  entirely  independent  of  the 
State.  But  here  again  the  Church  and  State  come  in 
contact  in  many  ways.  It  is  not  so  easy  to  hold  them 
apart  in  practice  as  in  theory.  In  all  questions  of  prop- 
erty, and  where  pecuniary  relations  come  into  considera- 
tion, and  damage  is  done  to  the  reputations  of  men  by 
the  action  of  the  ecclesiastical  courts,  the  State  is  still 
supreme  over  any  ecclesiastical  decisions  and  determi- 
nations. There  are  certain  definitions  and  limitations 
that  the  Church  should  make  to  its  own  powers,  if  it 
would  always  be  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  the  land. 
Such  definitions  would  tend  to  prevent  hasty  and  incon- 
siderate action,  especially  in  presbyteries,  which  some- 
times have  an  exalted  idea  of  their  own  sovereignty ; 
and  would  warn  them  not  to  take  any  action  in  viola- 
tion of  any  civil  rights,  or  material  interests,  or  the  re- 
ligious liberty  and  freedom  of  opinion  and  doctrinal  de- 
velopment, within  the  limits  of  the  constitution  of  the 
Church.  None  of  these  rights  of  a  minister  or  layman 
may  be  infringed  with  impunity  by  any  ecclesiastical 


WHITHER? 

court.  The  civil  courts  will  see  to  it,  that  the  Church 
does  not  violate  its  own  constitution,  and  that  it  does 
its  members  no  wrong. 

MARRIAGE  AND  DIVORCE. 

The  chapter  relating  to  marriage  and  divorce  ex- 
presses the  views  of  the  Westminster  divines  on  that 
subject ;  but  these  views  do  not  altogether  correspond 
with  the  doctrines  and  practices  of  modern  society. 

(a).  Monogamy  is  the  law  of  modern  society,  al- 
though it  is  not  explicitly  commanded  by  the  divine 
Word.  It  does  not  raise  any  questions  of  difficulty  ex- 
cept among  the  Mormons  in  Utah,  and  among  the  mis- 
sionaries to  the  heathen.  But  here  it  is  a  serious  ques- 
tion whether  a  man  should  be  compelled  to  abandon  all 
his  wives  except  one,  and  whether  wives  should  be  forced 
to  separate  from  their  husbands,  in  the  transition  from 
polygamy  to  monogamy,  when  there  is  no  explicit  law 
against  polygamy  in  the  Bible. 

(b).  The  limitations  to  marriage  are  not  so  observed  as 
to  make  their  violation  cases  of  discipline  in  the  Presby- 
terian Church.  No  one  thinks  of  going  any  further  than 
to  advise  that  "  it  is  the  duty  of  Christians  to  marry 
only  in  the  Lord.  And  therefore  such  as  profess  the 
true  reformed  religion  should  not  marry  with  infidels, 
Papists  or  other  idolaters."  *  No  Presbyterian  minister 
forbids  such  marriages,  or  deals  with  them  in  the  way 
of  discipline.  The  language  of  the  Confession  here  is 
unduly  polemical  against  Roman  Catholics,  and  tran- 
scends the  authority  of  the  Scriptures. 

(c).  The  Westminster  divines  were  not  consistent  with 
themselves  when  they  made  the  Levitical  laws  of  mar- 

*  Chap.  xxiv.  3. 


172  DEPARTURES. 

riage  a  rule  for  Christians.  The  American  Presbyterian 
Church  was  troubled  for  many  years  by  the  prohibition 
of  marriage  with  a  deceased  wife's  sister,  that  was  con- 
tained in  the  Confession  of  Faith.* 

The  Northern  and  Southern  Churches  in  recent  years 
removed  this  prohibition  from  the  Confession  by  strik- 
ing out  the  clause :  "  The  man  may  not  marry  one  of 
his  wife's  kindred  nearer  in  blood  than  he  may  of  his 
own  :  nor  the  woman  of  her  husband's  kindred  nearer  in 
blood  than  of  her  own."  This  law  was  disregarded  by 
many  of  our  most  eminent  ministers  and  laymen  for  years 
before  it  was  blotted  out.  It  ought  never  to  have  been 
put  into  the  Confession,  because  it  rested  upon  a  mis- 
taken interpretation  of  the  Levitical  code.  But  this  re- 
vision ought  to  have  gone  farther  and  the  references  to 
the  Levitical  code  in  the  proof-texts  should  have  been 
stricken  out — for,  according  to  the  statement  of  chapter 
xix.,  only  the  moral  law  written  in  the  two  tables  of 
the  Ten  Commandments  is  binding  on  Christians,  the 
Levitical  code  having  been  abrogated  under  the  New 
Testament.  The  Westminster  Confession  was  incon- 
sistent with  itself  in  affirming  the  obligation  of  the 
Levitical  code  of  marriage.f 

(d).  There  are  great  differences  of  opinion  on  the  sub- 
ject of  divorce.  The  Confession  limits  divorce  to  adultery 
and  wilful  desertion.:}:  But  the  laws  of  most  American 
States  extend  the  privileges  of  divorce  to  those  who  are 
injured  in  many  other  ways  than  the  two  mentioned  in 
the  Confession.  It  is  not  conceded  by  all  exegetes  that 
our  Saviour  means  to  limit  divorce  to  the  technical  sin 
of  adultery.  If  this  be  so,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  a 
conflict  can  be  avoided  between  Christ  and  the  teachings 

*  Chap.  xriv.  4.  t  See  p.  134.  \  Chap.  xriv.  6. 


WHITHER? 


173 


of  Paul.  The  Confession  certainly  adds  Paul's  reason 
to  that  given  by  Jesus.  If,  now,  the  adultery  as  given 
by  Jesus  is  to  be  so  extended  as  to  include  the  wilful 
desertion  of  Paul,  what  barrier  is  there  in  principle  to 
prevent  its  extension  still  further,  so  as  to  cover  other 
cases  of  internal  rupture  of  the  marriage  relation,  such 
as  personal  violence  and  abuse,  habitual  intoxication, 
and  criminal  conduct?*  There  is  a  lack  of  harmony 
between  the  Church  and  State  in  this  matter,  which  re- 
sults in  great  injury  to  good  morals. 

THE  CHURCH. 

The  Westminster  doctrine  of  the  Church  is  admirable 
in  all  its  definitions.  It  has  not  been  revised  so  far  as 
the  statements  of  the  Confession  are  concerned ;  but  it 
has  been  revised  in  the  teachings  and  life  of  a  consider- 
able number  of  the  Presbyterian  ministry  and  people. 
There  are  several  important  differences  that  have  de- 
veloped under  this  head. 

(i).  The  Premillenarians  take  exception  to  the  doc- 
trine that  the  visible  Church  is  the  kingdom  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.f  They  hold  that  Christ  will  not 
ascend  His  throne  and  will  not  establish  His  kingdom 
until  the  second  advent.:}: 

(2).  There  are  many  divines  who  object  to  the  state- 
ment that  the  Pope  of  Rome  is  "  that  antichrist,  that 
man  of  sin,  and  son  of  perdition,  that  exalteth  himself, 
in  the  Church  against  Christ,  and  all  that  is  called  God,"§ 
not  only  on  the  ground  that  it  is  not  true  in  fact,  but 


*  See  Dorner,  "  Sittenlehre,"  Berlin,  1885,  s.  500.  t  Chap.  xxv.  2. 

t  See   E.  R.  Craven,    "  Excursus  Basileia,"  pp.  93  seq.  of   his  edition  of 
Lange's  "  Commentary  on  Revelation,"  N.  Y.,  1874. 
§  Chap.  xxv.  6. 


174  DEPARTURES. 

also  on  the  ground  that  this  statement  of  the  Confession 
is  a  false  interpretation  of  2  Thessalonians  ii.  3,  4.* 

(3).  But  the  most  serious  departure  from  the  West- 
minster doctrine  is  made  by  those  who  deny  the  unity 
and  catholicity  of  the  visible  Church.  The  Westmin- 
ster definition  is  admirable : 

"  The  visible  Church,  which  is  also  catholic  or  universal  under 
the  gospel,  (not  confined  to  one  nation  as  before  under  the  law,) 
consists  of  all  those  throughout  the  world,  that  profess  the  true 
religion,  together  with  their  children ;  and  is  the  kingdom  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  house  and  family  of  God,  out  of  which 
there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  salvation  "  (xxv.  2). 

The  visible  Church  is  composed  of  all  professing  the 
true  religion  and  no  others.  There  is  no  ordinary  pos- 
sibility of  salvation  to  others.  This  shuts  out  the 
heathen  world  and  their  offspring,  all  who  are  not  pro- 
fessing Christians,  with  the  exception  of  imbeciles,  and 
such  others  as,  owing  to  providential  circumstances,  are 
unable  to  attach  themselves  to  the  visible  Church.  In 
this  statement  the  Westminster  Confession  is  consistent 
with  its  doctrine  as  to  effectual  calling  of  elect  infants 
and  other  elect  persons,  and  as  to  the  exclusion  of  the 
heathen.f  The  following  extract  will  show  how  far  an 
eminent  Presbyterian  divine  has  departed  from  this  doc- 
trine : 

"You  see  that  organization  cannot  be  the  essence  of  the 
Church.  I  tell  you  that  the  infinite  majority  of  the  spiritual 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ  come  into  existence  outside  of  all  organ- 
ization. Through  all  the  ages,  from  Japan,  from  China,  from  In- 
dia, from  Africa,  from  the  islands  of  the  sea,  age  after  age,  mul- 
titudes flocking  like  birds  have  gone  to  heaven  of  this  great 
company  of  redeemed  infants  of  the  Church  of  God ;  they  go 
without  organization.  Now,  this  is  demonstration ;  that,  if  the 

*  See  p.  185.  t  See  pp.  120  seq. 


WHITHER?  175 

great  majority  of  the  Church  always  has  existed  outside  of  or- 
ganization, then  organization,  while  of  assistance,  is  not  essential 
to  the  Church.  You  may  add  church  to  church  ;  these  are  but 
the  incidental  forms  which  the  universal  Church  of  God  assumes 
on  different  occasions  under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit,  under 
the  guidance  of  God's  providence  as  a  great  propaganda  for  the 
purpose  of  accomplishing  the  great  and  divine  work  of  carrying 
the  Gospel  to  the  ends  of  the  earth."  * 

(4).  We  shall  consider,  under  the  head  of  the  Church, 
the  chapters  on  Church  censures  (xxx.)  and  Synods  and 
Councils  (xxxi.),  because  these  are  really  an  elaboration 
of  the  principles  of  the  chapter  just  considered.  Their 
doctrine  is  what  may  be  called  zjure  divino  Presbyteri- 
anism.  The  Westminster  divines  thought  that  they  had 
found  in  the  Scriptures  the  Presbyterian  platform  of 
church  government.  No  one  can  doubt  their  consci- 
entiousness in  the  matter,  who  has  any  familiarity  with 
their  writings.  The  jure  divino  theory  of  church  gov- 
ernment was  then  held  by  the  Episcopalians  and  Inde- 
pendents as  well  as  the  Presbyterians.  Their  differences 
were  not  in  the  theory  of  the  divine  authority  for 
church  government,  but  in  the  interpretation  of  the 
passages  of  Scripture  upon  which  they  built  their  theo- 
ries. The  fundamental  theory  of  the  Westminster  di- 
vines that  all  church  government  must  derive  its  au- 
thority from  the  Scriptures  has  been  abandoned  by  the 
vast  majority  of  modern  Presbyterians.  They  have  not 
revised  the  statements  of  the  Confession  on  this  subject, 
but  they  are  entirely  out  of  harmony  with  them. 

The  introductory  statement  under  the  head  of  Church 
Censures  is  very  significant : 

"  The  Lord  Jesus,  as  king  and  head  of  his  church,  hath  therein 
appointed  a  government  in  the  hand  of  church-officers,  distinct 


*  A.  A.  Hodge's  "  Popular  Lectures,"  p.  208. 


176  DEPARTURES. 

from  the  civil  magistrate."  II.  "To  these  officers  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  are  committed,  by  virtue  whereof  they  have 
power  respectively  to  retain  and  remit  sins,  to  shut  that  kingdom 
against  the  impenitent,  both  by  the  word  and  censures ;  and  to 
open  it  unto  penitent  sinners,  by  the  ministry  of  the  gospel,  and 
by  absolution  from  censures,  as  occasion  shall  require  "  (xxx.  i,  2). 

The  Confession  of  Faith  does  not  go  into  details  in 
the  enumeration  of  the  officers  of  the  Church.  This 
was  reserved  for  the  Form  of  Government,  in  which 
every  statement  is  fortified  by  passages  of  Scripture  to 
prove  divine  authority  for  it. 

The  Westminster  Assembly  came  into  conflict  with 
Parliament  just  here.  The  Westminster  Assembly  sent 
up  to  Parliament  their  advice  as  "  to  keeping  away  scan- 
dalous and  unworthy  persons  from  the  Lord's  table," 
enumerating  certain  sins.  Parliament  passed  an  ordi- 
nance authorizing  certain  commissioners,  by  them  ap- 
pointed, to  decide  in  "  cases  not  enumerated."  The 
Westminster  Assembly,  on  March  23,  1645,  sent  up  a 
petition  to  Parliament  affirming  that 

"  The  provision  of  commissioners  to  judge  of  scandals,  not  enu- 
merated, appears  to  their  consciences  to  be  so  contrary  to  that 
way  of  government  which  Christ  hath  appointed  in  his  Church, 
in  that  it  giveth  power  to  judge  of  persons  to  come  to  the  sacra- 
ment, unto  such  as  Christ  hath  not  given  that  power." .  .  .  . "  That 
the  power  of  judging  in  cases  not  enumerated,  and  to  keep  back 
from  the  sacrament  all  such  as  are  notoriously  scandalous,  doth 
belong  to  the  several  elderships  by  divine  right,  and  by  the  will 
and  appointment  of  Christ."  * 

Parliament  regarded  this  petition  as  a  breach  of  the 
privileges  of  Parliament,  and  sent  down  nine  questions 
for  them  to  answer  as  regards  the  jure  divino.  The 
Assembly  began  discussing  these  questions,  but  were 
allowed  occasionally  to  lay  them  aside  for  more  im- 

*  "  Minutes  of  Westminster  Assembly,"  p.  457. 


WHITHER?  177 

portant  matters  connected  with  the  composition  of  the 
doctrinal  Standards.  They  were,  however,  answered  by 
the  Provincial  Assembly  of  London  in  an  official  doc- 
ument *  signed  by  the  moderator  and  clerks : 

The  Provincial  Assembly  of  London  herein  maintained  tha't 
"  '  there  is  a  Church  Government  of  divine  right  under  the  New 
Testament,'  that  the  rule  of  that  Government  is  Holy  Scripture, 
the  fountain  of  it  Jesus  Christ  as  mediator ;  that  it  is  a  spiritual 
power  or  authority  derived  from  Jesus  Christ,  and  exercised  by 
church  officers,  endowed  by  Him ;  that  the  several  acts  of  this 
power  are  public  prayer  and  thanksgiving,  singing  of  Psalms, 
public  ministry  of  the  Word  of  God  in  the  congregation,  in 
reading  the  Scriptures  and  singing,  the  catechetical  propounding 
or  expounding  of  the  Word,  the  administration  of  the  Sacra- 
ments, the  ordination  of  Presbyters  with  imposition  of  the  hands 
of  the  Presbytery,  the  authoritative  discerning  and  judging  of 
doctrine  according  to  the  Word  of  God,  admonition  and  public 
rebuke  of  sinners;  rejecting,  purging  out,  or  putting  away  from 
the  communion  of  the  Church,  wicked  and  incorrigible  persons, 
seasonable  remitting,  receiving,  comforting,  and  authoritative 
confirming  again  in  the  communion  of  the  Church,  those  that 
are  penitent,  taking  special  care  for  relief  of  the  necessities  and 
distresses  of  the  poor  and  afflicted  members  of  the  Church.  The 
end  of  this  government  is  the  edifying  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 
The  receptacle  of  this  power  of  church  government  is  not  the 
civil  magistrate  as  the  Erastians  contend,  nor  the  coetus  fidelium 
or  body  of  the  people,  as  presbyterated,  or  unpresbyterated  as 
the  Separatists  and  Independents  pretend,  but  Christ's  own  offi- 
cers which  He  hath  created  jure  divino  in  His  Church.  These 
officers  are,  (i)  pastors  and  teachers;  (?)  ruling  elders;  (3)  dea- 
cons. The  power  of  the  keys  or  proper  ecclesiastical  power  is 
distributed  among  these  church  officers  so  that  the  deacons  have 
the  care  of  the  poor,  the  ruling  elders  and  pastors  combine  the 
power  of  jurisdiction,  the  pastors  and  teachers  the  preaching  of 
the  Word  and  administration  of  sacraments.  The  Presbytery  is 

*  This  was  published  under  the  title,  "  Jus  divinum  Regiminis  Ecclesiastici "; 
or  "  The  Divine  Right  of  Church  Government  asserted  and  evidenced  by  the 
Holy  Scriptures,"  London,  1646. 


178  DEPARTURES. 

the  body  of  ruling  elders  and  pastors  having  this  power  of  jurisdic- 
tion which  may  be  the  lesser  assemblies,  consisting  of  the  minis- 
ters and  ruling  elders  in  each  single  congregation,  called  the 
Parochial  presbytery,  or  congregational  eldership,  and  the  greater 
assemblies  consisting  of  church  governors  sent  from  several 
churches  and  united  into  one  body  for  government  of  all  those 
churches  within  their  own  bounds.  These  greater  assemblies 
are  either  presbyterial  or  synodal, — presbyterial  consisting  of  the 
ministers  and  elders  of  several  adjacent  or  neighboring  single 
congregations  or  parish  churches,  called  the  presbytery  or 
classical  presbytery ;  synodal  consisting  of  ministers  and  elders 
sent  from  presbyterial  assemblies  to  consult  and  conclude  about 
matters  of  common  and  great  concernment  to  the  Church  within 
their  limits,  and  these  are  either  Provincial,  embracing  ministers 
and  elders  from  several  presbyteries  within  one  province ;  Na- 
tional, ministers  and  elders  from  several  provinces  within  one 
nation  ;  and  (Ecumenical,  ministers  and  elders  from  the  several 
nations  within  the  whole  Christian  world.  These  are  all  of  di- 
vine right,  and  there  is  a  divine  right  of  appeals  from  the  lower 
to  the  higher  bodies,  and  of  the  subordination  of  the  lower  to 
the  higher  in  the  authoritative  judging  and  determining  of 
causes  ecclesiastical."  * 

These  doctrines  of  the  Provincial  Assembly  of  Lon- 
don and  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  are  no  longer  the 
doctrines  of  American  Presbyterians.  This  will  be  clear 
from  the  following  extract  from  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge : 

"  There  are  not  two  churches,  the  one  visible  and  the  other  in- 
visible. There  is,  and  can  be  ever,  but  one  single,  indivisible 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ."  t  .  .  .  .  "  The  permanent  results  of 
biblical  interpretation  unite  with  the  history  of  Christ's  provi- 
dential and  gracious  guidance  of  the  churches  in  proving  that 
he  never  intended  to  impose  upon  the  Church  as  a  whole  any 
particular  form  of  organization.  Neither  he  nor  his  apostles 
ever  went  beyond  the  suggestion  of  general  principles  and  actual 
inauguration  of  a  few  rudimentary  forms."  ....  "The  Church 

*  Briggs*  "  Provincial  Assembly  of  London,"  Presbyterian  Review,  iL,  pp.  54 
seq. 

t  "  Popular  Lectures,"  p.  300. 


WHITHER?  179 

exists  antecedently  to  and  independently  of  any  organization, 
and  its  far  larger  part,  embracing  all  mankind  of  all  centuries 
dying  in  infancy,  extends  indefinitely  beyond  all  organizations. 
All  the  more  it  is  certain  that  no  special  form  can  be  essential 
to  the  existence,  or  even  to  the  integrity,  of  the  Church."  * 

THE  SACRAMENTS. 

The  chapters  of  the  Westminster  Confession  relating 
to  the  sacraments  are  admirable  definitions.  They  main- 
tain the  Calvinistic  doctrine  over  against  the  Roman 
Catholics  and  Lutherans  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
Zwinglian  theory  on  the  other.  The  sacraments  are  not 
merely  "  holy  signs,"  but  they  are  also  "  seals  of  the 
covenant  of  grace."  They  not  merely  "  represent  Christ 
and  his  benefits,"  but  they  "  confirm  our  interest  in 
him."  They  not  only  exhibit  grace,  but  they  confer 
grace. 

"  The  Grace  which  is  exhibited  in  or  by  the  sacraments,  rightly 
used,  is  not  conferred  by  any  power  in  them ;  neither  doth  the 
efficacy  of  a  sacrament  depend  upon  the  piety  or  intention  of 
him  that  doth  administer  it,  but  upon  the  work  of  the  Spirit, 
and  the  word  of  institution,  which  contains,  together  with  a  pre- 
cept, authorizing  the  use  thereof,  a  promise  of  benefit  to  worthy 
receivers  "  (xxvii.  3). 

This  section  of  the  Confession  has  been  departed  from 
in  several  items  of  doctrine. 

A  considerable  proportion  of  the  ministry  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  hold  low  views  of  the  sacraments, 
regarding  them  as  signs,  but  not  as  seals,  looking  upon 
them  as  symbols,  but  not  as  real  means  for  conferring  di- 
vine grace. 

The  Westminster  statements  carefully  exclude  the 
error  that  the  grace  of  God  is  conferred  ex  opere  operato 
by  the  mere  use  of  the  sacraments,  and  affirm  the  free 


*  "  Popular  Lectures,"  pp.  304-5. 


180  DEPARTURES. 

grace  of  God,  which  may  use  the  sacraments  or  not  as 
seems  to  Him  best  in  His  administration  of  grace.  As 
God  is  free  on  the  one  hand,  so  man  is  free  on  the  other. 
The  grace  of  God  is  not  conferred  on  unworthy  persons 
who  use  the  sacraments.  Personal  faith  is  required  in 
order  to  receive  the  grace  of  God  that  is  conferred  by 
the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  there  must  be 
a  worthiness  for  all  who  are  te  receive  the  sacrament  of  re- 
generation. They  must  be  in  the  covenant  of  grace  as  be- 
lievers or  the  children  of  believers.  If  there  be  present  the 
divine  intention  to  confer  grace  and  sacramental  worthi- 
ness, then  the  grace  is  really  conferred  by  the  sacraments. 

"  The  Sacraments  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  differ,  in 
that  baptism  is  to  be  administered  but  once,  with  water,  to  be  a 
sign  and  seal  of  our  regeneration  and  ingrafting  into  Christ,  and 
that  even  to  infants ;  whereas  the  Lord's  Supper  is  to  be  admin- 
istered often,  in  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine,  to  represent  and 
exhibit  Christ  as  spiritual  nourishment  to  the  soul,  and  to  con- 
firm our  continuance  and  growth  in  him,  and  that  only  to  such 
as  are  of  years  and  ability  to  examine  themselves."* 

Hence  it  is  that  a  Westminster  divine — such  as  Cor- 
nelius Burgess,  the  vice-president  of  the  Westminster 
Assembly — could  write  a  book  entitled  "  Baptismal  Re- 
generation of  Elect  Infants  ";  and  that  the  Westminster 
Directory  instructs  the  minister  at  the  Lord's  table  to 
say,  "  Take  ye,  eat  ye ;  this  is  the  body  of  Christ,  which 
is  broken  for  you ;  do  this  in  remembrance  of  him." 
The  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration  and  of  the  real 
presence  of  Christ  at  the  Lord's  table  are  as  truly  in  the 
Westminster  Standards  as  they  are  in  the  Book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer  of  the  Church  of  England.  In  the  conflict 
with  Episcopalians,  Presbyterians  have  gradually  drifted 
away  from  their  own  standards. 


*  "  Larger  Catechism,"  Quest.  177. 


WHITHER  ? 

As  Dr.  A.  F.  Mitchell  well  says : 

"  The  doctrine  taught  in  chapters  xxvii.,  xxviii.,  and  xxix.,  as  to 
the  nature  of  the  sacraments  generally,  and  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
especially,  is  such  as  could  have  grown  up  nowhere  else  so  surely 
as  on  British  soil,  where  the  truth  was  slowly  and  gradually  de- 
veloped in  the  minds  of  the  Reformers,  was  watered  by  the 
blood  of  the  martyrs,  and  so  was  finally  and  firmly  rooted  in  the 
affections  of  their  countrymen.  It  is,  in  brief,  the  teaching  of 
Cranmer,  Latimer,  and  Ridley ;  of  Hooker,  Ussher,  and  many 
others,  their  true-hearted  successors  in  the  South,  as  well  as  of 
Knox,  who,  from  his  long  residence  in  England,  and  with  English 
exiles  on  the  Continent,  has  thoroughly  caught  up  their  warm 
and  catholic  utterances.  This  teaching  is  as  far  removed  from 
the  bare  remembrance  theory  attributed  to  the  early  Swiss  Re- 
formers, as  from  the  consubstantiation  of  Luther  and  the  local  or 
supra-local  presence  contended  for  by  Roman  Catholics  and  An- 
glo-Catholics. It  is  so  spiritual,  yet  so  really  satisfying,  that  even 
some  High  Churchmen  have  owned  that  it  would  be  difficult  to 
find  a  better  directory  in  the  study  of  questions  relating  to  this 
sacrament  than  is  supplied  in  the  Confession  of  Faith;  while 
those  of  another  school  freely  grant  that,  on  the  doctrine  of  the 
sacraments,  they  '  do  not  perceive  a  shade  of  difference  from  the 
teaching  of  the  Church  of  England.'  The  language  throughout 
chapter  xxix.  is  as  nearly  as  possible  identical  with  that  of  the 
Irish  Articles."* 

ROMAN  CATHOLIC  BAPTISM. 

There  has  been  a  departure  from  the  Westminster 
doctrine  of  the  sacraments  in  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
by  the  new  theory  that  Roman  Catholic  baptism  is  in- 
valid. 

The  General  Assembly  in  1790  made  a  deliverance 
upon  the  subject  of  the  validity  of  baptism,  which  is  in 
entire  harmony  with  the  Reformed  faith  and  practice. 
The  members  of  that  Assembly  were  those  who  framed 
the  constitution  of  the  American  Presbyterian  Church, 


Minutes  of  Sessions  of  Westminster  Assemblj,"  Introduction,  p.  Ixviii. 


132  DEPARTURES. 

and  knew  what  they  were  doing  when  they  made  this 
wise  deliverance : 

"  Resolved,  That  it  is  a  principle  of  the  Church  that  the  un- 
worthiness  of  the  ministers  of  the  gospel  does  not  invalidate  the 
ordinances  of  religion  dispensed  by  them.  It  is  also  a  principle 
that  as  long  as  any  denomination  of  Christians  is  acknowledged 
by  us  as  a  Church  of  Christ,  we  ought  to  hold  the  ordinances  dis- 
pensed by  it  as  valid,  notwithstanding  the  unworthiness  of  particu- 
lar ministers.  Yet,  inasmuch  as  no  general  rule  can  be  made  to 
embrace  all  circumstances,  there  may  be  irregularities  in  particu- 
lar administrations  by  men  not  yet  divested  of  their  office,  either 
in  this  or  in  other  churches,  which  may  render  them  null  and 
void.  But  as  these  irregularities  must  often  result  from  circum- 
stances and  situations  that  cannot  be  anticipated  and  pointed 
out  in  the  rule,  they  must  be  left  to  be  judged  of  by  the  prudence 
and  wisdom  of  church  sessions  and  the  higher  judicatories  to 
which  they  may  be  referred."* 

There  are  three  important  statements  in  this  deliver- 
ance :  (i),  The  unworthiness  of  ministers  does  not  invali- 
date the  ordinances ;  (2),  none  but  a  Christian  Church 
cr.n  administer  Christian  ordinances;  (3),  there  maybe 
irregularities  in  the  administration  of  ordinances  which 
render  them  invalid. 

(:).'  The  first  statement  is  in  accordance  with  the  Con- 
fession : 

"  Neither  doth  the  efficacy  of  a  sacrament  depend  upon  the 
piety  or  intention  of  him  that  doth  administer  it,  but  upon  the 
work  of  the  Spirit  and  the  word  of  institution,  which  contains, 
together  with  a  precept  authorising  the  use  thereof,  a  promise  of 
benefit  to  worthy  receivers  "  (xxvii.  3). 

It  is  the  teaching  of  the  Westminster  Standards  that 
the  sacrament  of  baptism  is  efficacious  to  worthy  re- 
ceivers. Hence  a  repetition  of  the  sacrament  is  impos- 
sible. The  form  may  be  repeated,  but  the  work  of  the 

*  W.  E.  Moore,  "  Presbyterian  Digest,"  1873,  P-  659- 


WHITHER?  183 

Spirit,  which  it  seals,  is  but  once.  A  repetition  of  a 
valid  baptism  dishonors  it,  and  is  to  that  extent  a  sin 
against  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  makes  a  valid  baptism 
efficacious.  Hence  the  Westminster  Confession  says: 
"  The  sacrament  of  baptism  is  but  once  to  be  adminis- 
tered to  any  person."  *  As  Herbert  Palmer,  the  chief 
author  of  the  Larger  Catechism,  says :  "  Baptism  is  to  be 
administered  to  any  one  once,  and  no  more  ;  because  as  we 
can  be  born  but  once  naturally,  so  but  once  spiritually."  f 
Stephen  Marshall,  the  great  preacher  of  the  Westmin- 
ster Assembly,  arguing  against  John  Tombs,  the  leading 
English  Baptist  of  the  seventeenth  century,  represents 
that  rebaptizing  is  against  "  the  uncontradicted  custom 
of  all  the  ancient  Church,  with  whom  it  was  numbered 
among  heresies  to  reiterate  a  baptism  which  was  acknowl- 
edged to  be  valid."  £ 

The  validity  of  Roman  Catholic  baptism  does  not  de- 
pend upon  the  worthiness  or  the  piety  of  the  ministry 
of  the  Church.  All  Reformed  Churches  distinguish  be- 
tween the  ministry  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  and 
the  papacy.  They  do  not  deny  that  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic priests  are  ministers,  but  they  deny  that  they  are 
priests,  diocesan  bishops,  archbishops,  or  popes.  They 
recognize  the  ministry,  but  refuse  the  hierarchy.  This 
is  admfrably  represented  in  an  official  document  of  the 
Provincial  Assembly  of  London  : 

"We  distinguish  between  a  defective  ministrie  and  a  false 
ministrie,  as  we  do  between  a  man  that  is  lame  or  blind  and  a 
man  that  is  but  the  picture  of  a  man.  We  do  not  deny  but  that 
the  way  of  ministers  entering  into  the  ministrie  by  the  bishops, 
had  many  defects  in  it,  for  which  they  ought  to  be  humbled : 
but  we  add,  that  notwithstanding  all  the  accidental  corruptions, 


*  xxviii.  7.  t  Catechism,  p.  41. 

t  "  Defence  of  Infant  Baptism,"  London,  1646,  p.  68. 


184  DEPARTURES. 

yet  it  is  not  substantially  and  essentially  corrupted.  As  it  is 
with  baptism  in  the  Popish  church ;  all  orthodox  divines  account 
it  valid,  though  mingled  with  much  dross,  because  the  party 
baptized,  is  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost.  And  therefore  when  a  Papist  turns  Protestant,  he  is  not 
baptized  again,  because  the  substance  of  baptism  is  preserved  in 
Popery  under  many  defects."  * 

(2).  The  second  statement  of  the  Assembly  of  1790,  is 
that  none  but  a  Christian  Church  can  administer  or- 
dinances. The  Roman  Catholic  Church  is  a  Church  of 
Jesus  Christ.  This  is  clear  from  the  Westminster  doc- 
trine of  the  Church.f 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  is  embraced  in  these  definitions.  The  members 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  profess  the  true  religion, 
and  are  not  excluded  from  the  ordinary  possibility  of 
salvation.  Those  who  might  venture  to  put  into  the 
phrase  "  true  religion  "  the  Protestant  faith  and  order, 
would  violate  the  historic  usage  of  terms,  and  are  debarred 
by  the  distinction  in  the  definition  of  the  Catholic 
Church  between  the  "  more  or  less  pure  "  churches. 

Those  are  in  error  who  adduce  sections  five  and  six, 
as  if  they  separated  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  from 
the  previous  definition. 

There  is  no  evidence  that  the  authors  of  the4  Stand- 
ards designed  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  by  the  phrase 
"no  churches  of  Christ,  but  synagogues  of  Satan."  The 
plural,  "  church^,"  is  against  that  opinion.  Further- 
more, there  is  a  clear  distinction  between  the  Pope  of 
Rome  and  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  He  is  repre- 
sented as  Antichrist  exalting  himself  "  in  the  church." 
This  clearly  implies  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  is 


*  "  Vindication  of  the  Presbyterian  Government  and  Ministry,"  1650,  p.  143. 
t  xxv.  2-6. 


WHITHER?  185 

a  Church.  The  Pope  is  the  man  of  sin  enthroned  in  the 
Church  in  place  of  Jesus  Christ.  He  is  not  enthroned 
in  Protestant  Churches.  He  is  enthroned  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  alone.  That  this  is  the  meaning  of  the 
Standards  is  clear  from  an  official  document  of  the 
Westminster  Assembly  itself,  in  which  they  reply  to  the 
Dissenting  brethren : 

"  If  our  brethren  meane  by  Antichrist  or  the  man  of  sinne,  that 
which  the  Reformed  Churches  have  generally  understood,  name- 
ly, the  Papacy,  we  do  not  think  but  that  in  the  great  differences 
between  them  and  us,  the  light  already  revealed  is  clear  and 
sufficient  enough  for  conviction,  and  manifesting  of  the  errors 
thereof."  * 

The  Protestant  Reformers  and  the  Westminster  di- 
vines were  bent  upon  reforming  a  corrupt  Church,  and 
they  represented  the  hierarchy  and  the  errors  and  abuses 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  as  anti-Christian.  But 
the  Anabaptists  and  the  later  Brownist  Separatists  with- 
drew from  the  Catholic  Church  itself,  and  denounced 
all  the  national  Churches  and  their  ordinances  as  anti- 
Christian.  Anabaptism,  Katabaptism,  Rebaptism,  (the 
same  thing  under  different  names,)  was  the  most  charac* 
teristic  feature  of  the  radical  movement  which  meant 
deformation  and  destruction  of  all  the  historical 
Churches. 

Lazarus  Seaman,  a  leading  Westminster  divine,  in  his 
argument  against  Edmund  Chillendon,  in  vindication  of 
the  judgment  of  the  Reformed  Churches  and  Protestant 
divines  from  misrepresentations  concerning  ordination 
and  laying  on  of  hands,  quotes  with  approval  the  follow- 
ing extract  from  Francis  Johnson  : 

"The  Anabaptists  holding  that  Antichrist  hath  utterly  de- 
stroyed all  God's  ordinances,  so  as  there  was  not  so  much  as  true 

*  "  Papers  for  Accomodation,"  1644,  London,  1648,  p.  112. 


186  DEPARTURES. 

baptisme  reteined  and  had  among  them  (*'.  e.,  in  Rome  or  England), 
thereupon  they  began  to  baptize  themselves  again.  Whose  errors, 
while  we  confuted,  and  while  some  of  them  objected  that  we 
should  no  more  retain  the  baptisme  then  the  ministry  there  re- 
ceived :  we  had  just  occasion  thereupon  to  consider  thereof ;  and 
so  weighing  with  ourselves  that  one  main  and  speciall  reason 
against  Rebaptization  is,  because  baptisme  is  an  ordinance  of 
God  which  has  had  in  the  Church  of  Rome  before  she  fell  into 
apostasie,  and  hath  been  there  continued  ever  since  the  Apos- 
tle's times  (however  it  be  commingled  among  them  with  many 
corruptions  and  inventions  of  their  own),  we  began  to  consider 
Whether  the  like  might  not  be  observed  and  said  concerning  im- 
position of  hands ;  that  it  was  had  from  the  Apostles  in  the 
Church  of  Rome  before  her  apostasie,  and  is  there  continued  to 
this  day,  though  mixed  with  many  pollutions  and  devises  of  their 
own."* 

Thus  far  the  American  Presbyterian  Church  remained 
in  full  accord  with  the  Standards,  but  the  General  As- 
sembly of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  1835,  violated  the 
Confession  in  its  deliverance : 

"  Resolved,  That  it  is  a  deliberate  and  decided  judgment  of  this 
Assembly,  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  has  essentially  apos- 
tatized from  the  religion  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ, 
and  therefore  cannot  be  recognized  as  a  Christian  Church."  t 

This  language  is  indefensible  on  historic  or  constitu- 
tional grounds.  And  yet  it  was  made  in  hostility  to  Ro- 
man Catholic  education,  and  was  not  designed  to  apply 
to  the  question  of  baptism. 

This  General  Assembly  led  the  Church  in  a  drift  of 
error.  The  General  Assembly  of  1845  (O-  S.)  went  so  far 
as  to  declare : 

"That  no  rite  administered  by  one  who  is  not  himself  a  duly 
ordained  minister  of  the  true  Church  of  God  visible,  can  be  re- 


*  "  Vindication  of  the  Judgement  of  the  Reformed  Churches,"  London,  1647, 

P-  53- 
t  "  Minutes,"  p.  33. 


WHITHER?  187 

garded  as  an  ordinance  of  Christ,  whatever  be  the  name  by 
which  it  is  called,  whatever  the  form  employed  in  its  administra- 
tion. The  so-called  priests  of  the  Romish  communion  are  not 
ministers  of  Christ,  for  they  are  commissioned  as  agents  of  the 
papal  hierarchy,  which  is  not  a  church  of  Christ,  but  the  Man  of 
Sin,  apostate  from  the  truth,  the  enemy  of  righteousness  and  of 
God.  She  has  lain  long  under  the  curse  of  God,  who  has  called 
his  people  to  come  out  from  her,  that  they  be  not  partakers  of 
her  plagues."  * 

This  General  Assembly  had  the  audacity  to  throw  it- 
self athwart  the  consensus  of  the  Reformed  Churches 
and  proclaim  the  heretical  doctrine  that  Roman  Cath- 
olic baptism  is  invalid.  But  this  General  Assembly  was 
composed  of  a  faction  in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  Its 
deliverance  was  an  expression  of  the  errors  of  the  men 
who  made  it.  It  was  happily  not  a  judicial  decision,  and 
had  no  binding  force  in  the  denomination  whose  min- 
utes it  defiled.  It  was  the  work  of  the  same  set  of  men 
who  had  violated  the  constitution  of  the  American  Pres- 
byterian Church,  and  by  an  act  of  violence  had  brought 
about  the  division.  They  had  drifted  from  the  consen- 
sus of  the  Reformed  faith  and  historic  Presbyterianism 
into  the  principles  of  Anabaptism  and  the  Brownist  separa- 
tion. They  were  guilty  of  this  violation  of  the  Reformed 
faith  and  the  Presbyterian  practice,  owing  to  their  igno- 
rance of  Presbyterian  history,  their  intense  dogmatism  and 
devotion  to  a  priori  logic,  which  used  the  Westminster 
Standards  and  the  sacred  Scriptures  as  a  storehouse  of 
arguments  for  foregone  conclusions  and  pre-established 
prejudices.  Charles  Hodge  nobly  breasted  the  tide  and 
strove  to  overcome  this  error,  as  well  as  other  errors  of 
the  men  with  whom  he  was  compelled  by  circumstances 
to  co-operate,  but  his  appeals  to  history  and  reason  were 
drowned  in  the  cries  of  fanaticism  and  intolerance. 


*  "  Minutes,"  p.  35. 


188  DEPARTURES. 

The  New  School  branch  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
never  compromised  itself  with  this  heresy.  The  New 
School  Presbyterians  followed  the  lead  of  Henry  B. 
Smith,  and  adhered  to  the  historic  faith  of  the  Church. 
Hence  it  is  that  the  reunited  Church  was  happily  re- 
lieved of  the  burden  of  the  heretical  deliverance  of 

1845- 

The  General  Assembly  of  1879  endeavored  to  correct 
the  error  of  1835  by  the  following  declaration : 

"Resolved,  That  this  Assembly,  in  full  accordance  with  the 
words  of  our  Confession  of  Faith  respecting  the  Church  of 
Rome  and  its  so-called  spiritual  head,  do  now  reaffirm  the 
deliverance  upon  this  subject  of  the  Assembly  of  1835,  as 
applying  to  that  Roman  hierarchy  headed  by  the  Pope,  falsely 
claiming  to  be  the  Church,  which,  opposed  absolutely  and  irrecon- 
cilably to  the  doctrines  of  Holy  Scripture,  is  corrupting  and 
degrading  a  large  part  of  Christ's  Church  over  which  it  has 
usurped  supreme  control."  * 

This  deliverance  is  in  close  conformity  with  the  con- 
stitution and  the  historic  faith  of  the  Presbyterian  and 
Reformed  Churches. 

The  maturest  Westminster  view  of  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic Church  is  presented  in  the  following  careful  state- 
ments : 

"  There  are  some  amongst  us  that  refuse  to  hear  our  ministers 
because  they  were  ordained  (as  they  say)  by  Antichristian  bish- 
ops, and  think  they  are  bound  in  conscience  to  renounce  our 
ministry  till  we  have  renounced  our  ordination.  And  as  the 
Antipaedobaptists  would  rebaptize  all  that  are  baptized  among 
us :  so  the  Brownists  would  reordain  all  that  are  ordained 
amongst  us.  For  our  parts,  we  are  confident  that  there  is  neither 
warrant  out  of  the  Word  of  God  for  rebaptization  nor  reordi- 
nation."t  .  .  .  .  "  It  hath  pleased  God  out  of  his  infinite  wis- 
dom and  providence  to  continue  the  two  great  ordinances  of 

*  "  Minutes,"  p.  630.  t  "Jus  Divinum,"  1654,  ii.,  p.  x. 


WHITHER?  189 

baptism  and  ordination  sound  for  the  substantiate  of  them  in  the 
Church  of  Rome,  even  in  their  greatest  apostacy.  We  deny  not 
but  they  have  been  exceedingly  bemuddled  and  corrupted,  Bap- 
tism, with  very  many  superstitious  ceremonies,  as  of  oyl,  spittle, 
crossings,  etc. ;  Ordination,  with  giving  power  to  the  party  or- 
dained to  make  the  body  of  Christ,  etc.  But  yet  the  substantials 
have  been  preserved.  Children  were  baptized  with  water  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  And  the 
parties  ordained  had  power  given  them  to  preach  the  Word  of 
God.  Now  the  Protestant  religion  doth  not  teach  us  to  re- 
nounce baptism  received  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  neither  is  a 
Papist,  when  converted  Protestant,  rebaptized.  Nor  doth  it  teach 
us  simply  and  absolutely  to  renounce  ordination ;  but  it  deals 
with  it  as  the  Jewes  were  to  do  with  a  captive  maid  when  they 
had  a  mind  to  marrie  her.  They  must  shave  her  head  and  pare 
her  nailes  and  put  the  raiment  of  her  captivity  from  off  her, 
and  then  take  her  to  wife.  So  doth  the  Protestant  Reformed 
Religion.  It  distinguished!  between  the  ordinances  of  God  and 
the  corruptions  cleaving  unto  the  ordinances.  It  washeth  away 
all  the  defilements  and  pollutions  contracted  in  the  Church  of 
Rome,  both  from  baptism  and  ordination,  but  it  doth  not  re- 
nounce either  the  one  or  the  other."  * 

We  have  presented  sufficient  evidence  to  show  that  the 
Westminster  divines  regarded  Roman  Catholic  baptism 
as  valid ;  and  that  they  regarded  it  as  heretical  and  a 
mark  of  Anabaptism  to  deny  its  validity  and  to  rebaptize. 
We  claim  that  the  Westminster  Presbyterian  divines 
were  unanimous  in  this  opinion.  The  Westminster 
Standards  which  the  Westminster  divines  framed,  can- 
not be  made  to  teach  a  doctrine  which  its  authors  re- 
garded as  heretical.  How  absurd  it  is  for  Presbyterians 
to  torture  the  Standards  to  prove  an  error  which  is  re- 
pudiated by  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  Reformers 
and  the  Presbyterian  fathers !  What  respectable  name 
can  be  produced  to  offset  the  authorities  which  we  have 


*  "Jus  Divinum,"  1654,  ii.,  p.  54. 


190  DEPARTURES. 

quoted  at  the  risk  of  wearying  our  readers?  It  is  high 
time  that  this  fanatical  opposition  to  Roman  Catholic 
baptism  should  cease.  It  is  high  time  that  this  heretical 
tendency  to  Anabaptism  should  be  banished  from  the 
Presbyterian  Church. 

THE   REAL  PRESENCE. 

Dr.  Van  Dyke  has  recently  called  attention  to  the 
serious  departures  from  the  Standards,  in  the  current 
low  views  of  the  sacraments  in  the  Presbyterian  Church.* 
These  contra-confessional  opinions  are  not  confined  to 
the  ordinary  ministry  and  people ;  but  leading  divines, 
such  as  the  late  Principal  Cunningham,  of  the  Free 
Church  of  Scotland,  and  Dr.  Dabney,  the  leading  theo- 
logian of  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church,  share  in 
them.  As  Dr.  Crawford  said  some  years  ago : 

"  It  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  the  extreme  jealousy  that  is 
felt  among  us  of  anything  like  the  notion  of  an  opus  operatum 
in  this  sacrament  should  have  disposed  many  to  fall  into  the 
opposite  error  of  well-nigh  denying  any  efficacy  to  baptism  as 
a  means  of  imparting  spiritual  benefits  to  those  who  receive  it, 
and  of  regarding  it  in  no  higher  light  than  that  of  a  mere  form  of 
admission  into  the  visible  Church.  The  prevalence  of  such  low 
views  of  the  efficacy  of  baptism  is  one  of  the  greatest  obstacles 
in  the  way  of  its  proving  efficacious."  t 

It  is  probable  that  the  most  general  departure  from 
the  Westminster  doctrine  of  the  sacraments  is  in  the 
lack  of  faith  in  the  real  presence  of  Christ  in  the  sacra- 
ment of  the  bread  and  the  wine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

Dr.  Van  Dyke  correctly  says : 

"Dr.  Schaff  says  truly  that  'the  Zwinglian  is  the  simplest, 
clearest,  and  most  intelligible  theory.  It  removes  the  super- 


*  Presbyterian  Review,  vol.  v.,  pp.  i  sef.,  and  voL  vi.,  pp.  29  seq. 
t "  Fatherhood  of  God,"  2d  edition,  Edin.  1867,  p.  319. 


WHITHER? 

natural  influence  of  the  ordinance,  and  presents  no  obstacle  to 
the  understanding.'  And  this  is,  doubtless,  the  secret  of  its  prev- 
alence. Rationalism,  in  the  evil  sense  of  the  word,  is  by  no 
means  confined  to  Germany  ;  nor  does  it  win  its  only  triumphs 
in  the  fields  of  Theology  and  Biblical  Criticism.  Many  who  de- 
nounce rationalizing  in  these  directions,  pursue  the  same  method 
to  extremes  in  their  views  of  the  Church  and  the  Sacraments. 
They  demand  that  the  potency  and  the  promise  of  these  holy 
ordinances  shall  be  brought  down  to  their  comprehension,  and 
insist  that  the  theory  which  takes  them  out  of  the  category  of 
divine  mysteries  is  the  true  one,  because  it  is  so  easily  under- 
stood. That  these  views  are  current  to  a  great  extent,  even  in 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  there  is  unfortunately  little  room  for 
doubting.  Their  prevalence  is  both  evidenced  and  fostered  by 
the  ecclesiastical  phraseology  so  generally  adopted.  The  first 
participation  in  the  Lord's  Supper  has  become  not  only  contem- 
poraneous, but,  in  the  popular  understanding,  identical  with  pro- 
fessing Christ's  name  and  joining  the  Church.  And  hence,  in  the 
apprehension  of  many,  our  participation  in  the  Lord's  Supper  is 
chiefly,  if  not  exclusively,  a  '  badge  of  our  profession,'  and  its  re- 
peated use  is  but '  the  renewal  of  our  covenant  vows.'  "  * 

The  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  was  in  some  re- 
spects the  most  debated  of  all  doctrines,  for  it  not  only 
divided  Protestants  and  Romanists,  but  it  also  divided 
the  Lutheran  from  the  Reformed  ;  and  there  were  differ- 
ences among  the  Lutherans  and  among  the  Reformed 
themselves.  Hence  every  phase  of  the  doctrine  was 
discussed,  and  the  lines  were  drawn  with  the  utmost 
care,  so  as  to  indicate  the  parts  of  the  doctrine  in  which 
there  was  concord,  and  those  parts  in  which  there  was 
discord.  It  is  a  mark  of  the  rationalizing  on  this  subject 
in  the  modern  Church  that  there  is  such  a  wide-spread 
departure  from  the  common  doctrine  of  the  Church  and 
those' parts  of  the  doctrine  in  which  all  were  agreed  in 
the  i/th  century. 

*  Presbyterian  Review ',  vol.  v.,  p.  8. 


192  DEPARTURES. 

Bishop  Davenant  tells  us  : 

"  No  protestant  church  can  be  named  which  professeth  not 
with  the  Eucharist  the  true  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ,  although  it  acknowledgeth  the  very  manner  of  the  pres- 
ence to  be  supernatural  and  plainly  divine All  Protestant 

Churches  are  point  blank  against  all  erroneous  doctrines  of  the 
bare  representation  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  parted  from 
the  true  exhibiting  of  him."  * 

It  is  in  keeping  with  this  lack  of  apprehension  of  the 
real  presence  of  Christ  in  the  sacrament  that  there 
should  be  loose  and  careless  ways  of  observance.  The 
Westminster  divines  were  even  ready  to  break  with  Par- 
liament and  risk  everything  for  the  principle  of  keeping 
unworthy  persons  from  the  Lord's  table ;  but  in  our 
times  not  a  few  ministers  give  a  general  invitation  to  all 
who  desire  to  partake,  without  any  attempt  to  guard  the 
Lord's  table  from  the  profane,  the  ignorant,  and  the 
scandalous.  If  there  were  any  apprehension  of  the 
mystery  and  the  sanctity  of  the  real  presence  of  Christ 
in  the  sacrament,  the  ministry  and  people  would  be 
more  careful  in  preparing  themselves  and  in  inviting 
others.  The  Master  has  never  given  His  ministers  the 
authority  to  make  indiscriminate  invitations.  The  Pres- 
byterian Directory  for  Worship  tells  the  minister  whom 
he  is  to  invite  and  also  those  whom  he  is  to  warn  away. 

Another  sin  against  the  sacrament  has  become  com- 
mon in  recent  times  owing  to  the  movement  in  favor  of 
total  abstinence.  The  Master  Himself  made  bread  and 
wine  the  sacramental  elements.  The  early  Protestants 
contended  fiercely  against  the  Romanists  for  withhold- 
ing the  wine  from  the  laity,  but  many  modern  Protest- 
ants do  not  hesitate  to  banish  the  wine  of  redemption 
from  the  communion  table,  on  the  plea. that  it  excites  to 

*  "  Exhortation  to  Brotherly  Communion,"  1641,  p.  129.        .         : 


WHITHER?  193 

intemperance.  It  would  be  lawful,  for  a  man  who  could 
be  tempted  to  intemperance  at  the  Lord's  table,  to  ab- 
stain from  the  cup.  But  it  is  not  lawful  to  deprive  all 
others  of  the  cup  of  blessing  on  his  account.  And  it  is 
contrary  to  the  Scriptures  and  the  constitution  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  it  is  a  reflection  upon  the  wisdom 
and  grace  of  our  Lord,  and  it  is  altogether  disorderly  to 
substitute  any  drink  whatever  for  the  wine,  which  our 
divine  Saviour  Himself  invites  us  to  drink  at  His  table 
as  the  pledge  of  His  redeeming  love. 

It  is  refreshing  to  turn  away  from  the  low  and  mean 
views  of  the  Lord's  Supper  that  prevail  among  recent 
Protestants  to  the  noble  words  of  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge : 

"  It  does  not  do  to  say  that  this  presence  is  only  spiritual,  be- 
cause that  phrase  is  ambiguous.  If  it  means  that  the  presence 
of  Christ  is  not  something  objective  to  us,  but  simply  a  mental 
apprehension  or  idea  of  him  subjectively  present  to  our  con- 
sciousness, then  the  phrase  is  false.  Christ  as  an  objective  fact 
is  as  really  present  and  active  in  the  sacrament  as  are  the  bread 
and  wine  or  the  minister  or  our  fellow-communicants  by  our 
side.  If  it  means  that  Christ  is  present  only  as  he  is  represented 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  is  not  wholly  true,  because  Christ  is  one 
Person  and  the  Holy  Ghost  another,  and  it  is  Christ  who  is  per- 
sonally present.  The  Holy  Ghost  doubtless  is  coactive  in  that 
presence  and  in  all  Christ's  mediatorial  work,  but  this  leads  into 
depths  beyond  our  possible  understanding.  It  does  not  do  to 
say  that  the  divinity  of  Christ  is  present  while  his  humanity  is 
absent,  because  it  is  the  entire  indivisible  divine-human  Person 
of  Christ  which  is  present."  * 

We  have  seen  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  has  de- 
parted from  the  nine  chapters  of  the  Confession,  consid- 
ered in  the  present  chapter,  into  serious  errors.  In  the 
whole  realm  of  doctrine  and  practice,  contra-confessional 
views,  that  strike  at  essential  and  necessary  articles  and 

*  "  Popular  Lectures,"  pp.  408-9. 


194  DEPARTURES. 

destroy  the  Westminster  system,  are  either  entertained 
by  large  numbers  of  our  ministry  and  people,  or  else  are 
allowed  to  remain  unchallenged  by  the  orthodox,  and 
are  tolerated  as  if  they  were  errors  of  small  importance. 
Such  a  state  of  affairs  could  not  have  existed  in  the  i6th 
and  I /th  centuries.  Differences  of  far  less  importance 
resulted  in  strife,  separation,  and  the  organization  of  the 
existing  denominations.  In  fact  the  strife  in  former 
generations  was  chiefly  here.  If  the  doctrines  of  the 
Church  and  the  sacraments  are  of  so  little  importance, 
and  such  differences  as  those  mentioned  can  be  rightly 
overlooked  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  why  should  we 
any  longer  perpetuate  those  different  denominations  that 
were  established  for  the  express  purpose  of  giving  lib- 
erty and  advocacy  to  these  different  theories  of  the 
Church  and  the  sacraments  ? 


CHAPTER    VIII. 
PERPLEXITIES. 

THE  Confession  of  Faith  concludes  with  two  chapters 
upon  Eschatology,  embracing  the  state  of  man  after 
death,  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  the  last  judg- 
ment. Here  is  one  of  the  chief  battle-grounds  in  the 
theology  of  the  day.  It  is  interesting,  and  at  the  same 
time  distressing,  to  observe  that  all  the  faults  of  Tradi- 
tionalism converge  at  this  point.  Here  we  find  extra- 
confessional  errors,  infra-confessional  errors,  and  contra- 
confessional  errors ;  and  the  entire  Church  is  in  a  condi- 
tion of  great  perplexity. 

JUDGMENT  AT  DEATH. 

The  chief  extra-confessional  error  is  the  doctrine  of  a 
private  judgment  at  death.  This  doctrine  is  taught  by 
the  majority  of  the  dogmatic  divines  and  the  ministry 
who  depend  upon  them.  And  yet  there  is  not  a  word 
of  it  in  the  Westminster  Confession  or  Catechisms,  or  in 
any  Creed  of  the  Church,  or  in  any  of  the  writings  of  the 
Word  of  God.  It  originated  from  the  ethnic  religions 
that  know  of  no  ultimate  judgment  and  no  primitive 
judgment  in  Eden.  These  religions  needed  the  judg- 
ment at  death  to  determine  the  rewards  and  punish- 
ments incurred  by  men  in  this  life.  The  doctrine  was 
retained  in  a  semi-Pelagian  Church,  which  had  no  proper 
conception  of  the  guilt  of  original  sin,  and  which  made 
much  of  the  debit  and  credit  account  of  human  actions. 

(195) 


196  PERPLEXITIES. 

It  was  revived  by  Protestant  dogmatic  divines  in  the  in- 
terest of  determining  the  fate  of  men  immediately  after 
death,  without  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  the  middle 
state. 

This  doctrine  of  a  private  judgment  at  death  works 
mischief  in  several  directions  : 

(a).  It  cramps  the  doctrine  of  the  primitive  judgment 
of  our  race  in  Eden,  robs  that  divine  act  of  its  meaning, 
and  imperils  the  doctrine  of  original  sin.  The  Larger 
Catechism  teaches  that 

"  the  fall  brought  upon  mankind  the  loss  of  communion  with 
God,  his  displeasure  and  curse  ;  so  as  we  are  by  nature  children 
of  wrath,  bond-slaves  to  Satan,  and  justly  liable  to  all  punish- 
ments in  this  world  and  that  which  is  to  come."  * 

According  to  this  statement  the  race  of  man  is  a  con- 
demned race.  By  an  act  of  divine  judgment  all  men 
are  born  into  this  world  in  a  <state  of  punishment  cul- 
minating in  death,  which  then  introduces  them  to  an- 
other state  of  punishment  in  the  world  to  come.  There 
is  no  room  here  for  a  judgment  at  death,  a  pretended 
judgment  that  grants  no  new  trial,  and  that  makes  no 
change  whatever  in  the  original  sentence. 

(b).  All  men  remain  in  the  state  of  condemnation  and 
punishment  until  they  are  removed  from  it  by  divine 
grace  and  translated  into  a  state  of  redemption.  They 
are  justified  freely  by  divine  grace  so  soon  as  they  believe 
in  Christ  and  they  are  no  longer  under  condemnation. 

What  can  a  private  judgment  at  death  do  for  a  man 
who  is  already  justified?  Is  he  to  be  justified  over 
again  ?  Is  he  to  have  a  higher  grade  of  justification  ? 
He,  of  whom  Christ  said,  "  He  cometh  not  into  judg- 
ment, but  hath  passed  out  of  death  into  life,"  f  has  noth- 

*  Q.  27.  t  John  v.  34. 


WHITHER?  197 

ing  to  gain  or  to  lose  by  such  a  judgment.  A  justified 
man  ought  to  have  no  fear  of  death.  If  it  introduces 
him  into  the  presence  of  his  loving  Father  and  Re- 
deemer, he  will  look  forward  to  it  with  joy.  This  false 
doctrine,  that  he  must  at  once  after  death  appear  before 
the  supreme  tribunal  and  stand  the  test  of  a  judgment 
upon  which  his  everlasting  future  will  depend,  makes 
the  bravest  and  the  holiest  shrink  from  death. 

(c).  There  is  no  place  in  the  order  of  salvation  for  a 
private  judgment  at  death.  There  can  be  none  for  the 
sinner  or  saint  in  accordance  with  the  Calvinistic  scheme. 
An  Arminian  may  look  forward  to  a  judgment  at  death, 
because  he  underrates  the  guilt  of  original  sin  and  makes 
man's  salvation  dependent  upon  his  use  of  his  probation 
in  this  world.  The  private  judgment  at  death  decides 
the  issues  of  this  probation.  Man's  salvation  is  uncer- 
tain until  this  judgment  has  been  pronounced.  The 
doctrine  that  this  life  is  a  probation  and  that  there  is  a 
private  judgment  at  death  are  inseparable.  Both  are 
Arminian,  and  neither  can  be  reconciled  with  Calvinistic 
principles. 

(d).  The  doctrine  of  a  private  judgment  at  death  ob- 
trudes itself  in  place  of  the  public  judgment  of  the  day 
of  doom,  renders  it  unnecessary,  and  strips  it  of  its  im- 
portance. Dr.  Shedd  says : 

"  The  private  judgment  at  death  and  the  public  judgment  at 
the  last  day  coincide,  because  in  the  intermediate  state  there  is 
no  alteration  of  moral  character,  and  consequently  no  alteration 
of  the  sentence  passed  at  death."  * 

The  Scriptures  and  the  creeds  agree  in  holding  up 
the  public  judgment  as  the  crisis  that  determines  the 
everlasting  destiny  of  mankind.  If  our  eternal  weal 


*  Shedd,  "  Dogmatic  Theology,"  vol.  ii.,  p.  660.    Chas.  Scribner's  Sons. 


198  PERPLEXITIES. 

or  woe  is  to  be  determined  by  a  private  judgment  at 
death  the  ultimate  public  judgment  is  reduced  to  a  mere 
ceremony,  confirming  in  public  the  judgment  that  had 
been  privately  given  to  the  sinner  centuries  and  possibly 
millenniums  before. 

"  Not  only  would  nothing  of  essential  importance  remain  for 
the  judgment,  if  every  one  entered  the  place  of  his  eternal  destiny 
directly  after  death  ;  but  in  that  case,  also,  no  room  would  be  left 
for  a  progress  of  believers,  who,  however,  are  not  yet  sinless  at 
the  moment  of  death.  If  they  are  conceived  as  holy  directly 
after  death,  sanctification  would  be  effected  by  the  separation 
from  the  body ;  the  seat,  therefore,  of  evil  must  be  found  in  the 
body,  and  sanctification  would  be  realized  through  a  mere  suffer- 
ing, namely,  of  death  in  a  physical  process,  instead  of  through 
the  will.  Moreover,  the  absoluteness  of  Christianity  demands 
that  no  one  be  judged  before  Christianity  has  been  made  accessi- 
ble and  brought  near  to  him.  But  that  is  not  the  case  in  this  life 
with  millions  of  human  beings.  Nay,  even  within  the  church 
there  are  periods  and  circles  where  the  Gospel  does  not  really 
approach  men  as  that  which  it  is.  Moreover,  those  dying  in  child- 
hood have  not  been  able  to  decide  personally  for  Christianity."  * 

The  public  judgment  is  at  the  completion  of  the  era 
of  grace.  It  presupposes  the  accomplishment  of  the  en- 
tire order  of  redemption  for  all  the  elect.  It  is  a  judg- 
ment pronounced  by  the  Redeemer  on  the  basis  of  His 
work  of  redemption,  and  in  view  of  its  completion.  It 
is  the  culmination  of  the  Messianic  kingdom ;  the  tri- 
umph of  the  Lamb  in  His  saints  and  over  every  foe. 
The  private  judgment  at  death  would  be  premature.  It 
would  be  in  the  midst  of  the  process  of  redemption  for 
the  individual  and  for  the  world.  It  would  presuppose 
all  the  processes  of  grace  until  the  day  of  judgment.  It 
would  assign  the  rewards  and  penalties  centuries  before 
they  were  earned.  Indeed  this  doctrine  of  a  private 

*  "  Domer  on  the  Future  State,"  pp.  100-1.  Chas.  Scribner's  Sons,  N.  Y., 
1883. 


WHITHER?  199 

/ 

judgment  at  death  is  impossible  to  any  one  who  believes 
that  there  will  be  growth  in  grace  or  in  sin  in  the  mid- 
dle state.  It  is  connected  with  narrow  views  of  the 
work  of  the  Redeemer  and  His  work  of  redemption.  It 
is  associated  with  an  undue  emphasis  upon  the  imputed 
righteousness  of  Christ  and  a  neglect  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  transformation  of  the  Christian  into  the  likeness  of 
Christ  by  the  impartation  of  His  righteousness.  The 
Confession  and  the  Scriptures  teach  that  the  judgment 
after  death  will  be  a  judgment  according  to  works  and 
character.  Men  are  justified  by  the  imputed  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  when  they  accept  Him  as  their  Saviour. 
In  the  day  of  judgment  they  will  be  justified  by  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  that  has  been  imparted  to  them, 
that  has  transformed  them  and  that  has  made  them 
righteous  as  Christ  their  Redeemer  is  righteous.  Dr. 
A.  A.  Hodge  gives  expression  to  a  common  error  when 
he  says : 

"  All  mankind  will  then  be  judged  by  Christ  in  person,  and  be- 
lievers justified  on  the  ground  of  imputed  righteousness  and 
unbelievers  condemned  for  their  own  sins."  * 

Such  an  ultimate  justification  does  not  advance  be- 
yond the  justification  of  believers  at  the  moment  they 
believe.  It  ignores  the  whole  process  of  sanctification ; 
it  takes  no  account  of  the  infusion  of  the  righteousness 
of  Christ  and  of  His  transforming  grace  in  sanctification. 
It  gives  me  great  pleasure  to  endorse  the  excellent  re- 
marks of  the  premillenarian,  Dr.  Brookes,  here,  with 
regard  to  sanctification  at  death : 

"  Post-millennialists  invariably  t  make  it "  (sanctification)  "  end 


*  "  Presbyterian  Doctrine,"  p.  31. 

t  This  is  not  true,  for  there  are  not  a  few  Post-millennialists  who  agree  with 
Dr.  Brookes  here. 


200  PERPLEXITIES. 

at  death,  and  thus  turn  our  attention  to  that  which  is  the  curse, 
the  consequence  and  the  conquest  of  sin,  to  the  clammy  sweat, 
the  glazing  eye,  the  labored  breathing,  the  coffin,  the  grave,  the 
worm  and  corruption,  as  the  goal  to  which  the  Holy  Spirit's  dis- 
cipline and  teachings  conduct  the  believer.  It  is  needless  to  say 
that  no  such  view  is  presented  in  Scripture.  There,  a  far  higher 
and  nobler  object  is  set  before  us :  'To  the  end  He  may  stablish 
your  hearts  unblameable  in  holiness  before  God,  even  our  Father, 
at  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  with  all  His  saints '  (i 
Thess.  iii.  13) ;  '  And  the  very  God  of  peace  sanctify  you  wholly  ; 
and  I  pray  God  your  whole  spirit  and  soul  and  body  be  preserved 
blameless  unto  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ '  (i  Thess. 
v.  23) ;  '  And  now,  little  children,  abide  in  Him  ;  that  when  He 
shall  appear,  we  may  have  confidence  and  not  be  ashamed  before 
Him  at  His  coming '  (i  John  ii.  28).  This,  and  not  death,  is  the 
appropriate  and  glorious  termination  of  our  growth  in  grace,  and 
in  the  knowledge  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ."  * 

.  The  righteousness  of  Christ  is  imputed  in  order  that  it 
may  be  imparted  to  the  entire  body  of  His  redeemed. 
When  the  judgment  sounds,  the  mediatorial  kingdom 
of  glory  will  shine  forth.  Then  we  may  be  assured  that 
the  Redeemer  will  rejoice  in  a  completed  work.  His 
elect  will  not  merely  be  justified  and  clothed  with  im- 
puted righteousness ;  they  will  be  sanctified  and  adorned 
with  a  righteousness  of  their  own,  complete  and  perfect, 
reflecting  the  righteousness  and  glory  of  their  Lord  ;  for 
His  bride  will  be  a  glorious  church,  "  not  having  spot  or 
wrinkle  or  any  such  thing  ";  "  holy  and  without  blemish." 

THE   MILLENNIUM. 

The  current  doctrine  of  a  millennium  in  the  future 
before  the  advent  of  Christ  is  another  extra-confessional 
doctrine  for  which  there  is  no  basis  in  the  Westminster 
Standards.  The  Westminster  divines  as  a  body  held  to 


*  •'  Premillennial  Essays,"  p.  304.     Chicago :  Rerell,  publisher,  1879. 


WHITHER?  201 

the  ancient  orthodox  view  of  the  Christian  Church,  that 
the  millennium  corresponds  in  whole  or  in  part  with  the 
age  of  the  Christian  Church  as  the  kingdom  of  the  Mes- 
siah on  earth.  There  was  great  difference  of  opinion 
with  regard  to  the  beginning  of  the  millennium,  whether 
at  the  first  advent  of  Christ,  at  His  resurrection,  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost,  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  or  at 
the  conversion  of  the  Roman  empire.  There  was  dif- 
ference of  opinion  as  to  its  duration,  whether  the  thou- 
sand years  were  exactly  a  thousand  years  or  a  symboli- 
cal number  for  an  extended  period.  Accordingly  some 
thought  the  millennium  was  past,  others  that  it  still 
continued.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  these  views  pre- 
vailed in  the  Westminster  Assembly  and  gave  shape  to 
its  definitions.  Hence  there  is  no  mention  of  the  mil- 
lennium. There  is  no  room  for  it  in  the  chapters  on  Escha- 
tology.  The  Standards  express  the  faith  of  the  universal 
catholic  Church  in  looking  forward  to  the  advent  of 
Christ  for  the  judgment  of  the  risen  world  as  imminent. 
It  is  true  that  a  considerable  number  of  the  Westminster 
divines  looked  forward  to  a  more  glorious  condition  of 
the  Church  on  earth  prior  to  the  advent  of  Jesus  Christ, 
but  only  a  few  of  these  identified  those  times  with  the 
millennium.  The  current  doctrine  is  one  for  which 
Daniel  Whitby,  the  Arminian,  and  the  great  revival  of 
Methodism  are  chiefly  responsible. 

All  those  who  hoped  for  the  golden  age  of  the  Church 
in  the  future  were  called  Chiliasts  or  Millenaries.  The 
Anabaptists  of  the  Reformation  were  Premillenarians. 
All  the  Reformers  except  Francis  Lambert  agreed  with 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  that  the  millennium  was 
either  past  or  still  present.  Francis  Lambert,  however,* 


*  "  Commentary  in  Apoc.,"  Marburg,  1528,  p.  283. 


202  PERPLEXITIES. 

while  he  rejected  Premillenarianism  as  an  "  execrable 
error,"  held  that  Jesus  Christ  will  reign  over  the  whole 
world  in  a  spiritual  manner,  all  sects  will  be  annihilated, 
Antichrist  will  be  destroyed,  Israel  will  be  converted, 
and  there  will  be  one  holy  Christian  Church  in  the 
world.  This  view  was  adopted  by  many  subsequent 
Protestant  divines  on  the  Continent  and  in  Great  Brit- 
ain, some  connecting  it  with  the  millennium  and  some 
holding  it  apart  from  the  millennium.  The  most  influ- 
ential of  these  were  Callus  of  Leiden,*  who  made  the 
millennium  the  period  between  1519  and  the  advent  of 
Christ  to  judgment  at  the  end  of  the  world  ;  Piscator  of 
Herborn,f  who  taught  that  the  martyrs  would  rise  to 
reign  with  Christ  in  heaven,  while  upon  earth  the  Church 
would  enjoy  felicity  and  security  during  the  millennium, 
after  the  fall  of  Antichrist ;  Alsted, \  who  taught  a  bodily 
resurrection  of  the  martyrs  to  live  in  this  world  during 
the  millennium,  but  held  that  Christ  will  reign  visibly  in 
heaven  but  invisibly  on  earth,  His  visible  kingdom  being 
resigned  to  the  risen  martyrs.  Thomas  Brightman  first 
introduced  these  views  into  Great  Britain  in  his  "  Com- 
mentary on  the  Apocalypse."  §  He  makes  two  millen- 
niums, the  first  from  Constantine  till  1303,  when  he  finds 
the  resurrection  of  the  martyrs  in  Wiclif  and  his  asso- 
ciates, and  then  a  second  millennium  from  1300  to  2300. 
This  is  followed  by  the  conversion  of  the  Jews  "and  the 
glorious  condition  of  the  combined  Jewish  and  Gentile 
Churches  on  earth  described  in  Rev.  xxi.  and  xxii.  In 
1621,  Henry  Finch  wrote  a  book  entitled  "  The  Calling 
of  the  Jews,"  which  was  published  for  him  by  William 

*  "  Clavis  Prophetica,"  Leiden,  1593,  p.  26. 

t  "  Comment,  on  New  Test.,  1597,  on  Rev.  xx." 

t  "  Beloved  City,"  p.  17,  London,  1643. 

§  Frankfurt,  1609 ;  Heidelberg,  1612 ;  Amsterdam,  1615 ;  Leiden,  1616. 


WHITHER?  203 

Gouge.  He  follows  Brightman,  referring  Rev.  xxi.  and 
xxii.  to  the  restored  Jewish  Church.  This  doctrine  of 
the  conversion  of  the  Jews  and  of  a  more  glorious  con- 
dition of  the  Church  in  connection  therewith,  seems  to 
have  laid  strong  hold  upon  many  of  the  Westminster 
divines.  William  Gouge,  one  of  the  leaders  of  the  As- 
sembly, especially  in  the  work  on  the  Confession,  cer- 
tainly held  this  opinion  and  carefully  distinguishes  it 
from  Premillenarianism,  as  is  clear  from  the  following 
extract : 

"  There  are  more  particular  promises  concerning  a  future  glory 
of  the  Christian  Church,  set  down  by  the  prophets  in  the  Old 
Testament,  and  by  Christ  and  his  disciples  in  the  New,  especially 
in  the  book  of  the  Revelation,  then  we  have  either  heard  of  or 
seen  in  our  dayes  to  be  accomplished.  The  glorious  city  de- 
scribed. Rev.  xxi.  10,  etc.,  is  by  many  judicious  divines  taken 
for  a  type  of  a  spiritual,  glorious  estate  of  the  Church  of  Christ 
under  the  gospel  yet  to  come,  and  that  before  his  last  coming  to 
judgment.  I  passe  by  all  conceits  of  our  later  Chiliasts  or  Mil- 
lenaries (whom  in  English  we  may  call  thousandaries)  who  ima- 
gine that  Christ  shall  personally  come  down  from  heaven,  in  that 
nature  in  which  after  his  resurrection  he  ascended  into  heaven, 
and  reign  here  a  thousand  years  with  his  saints.  The  certainty 
of  this  I  leave  to  be  proved  by  them  who  are  the  broaches  thereof. 
But  this  is  most  certain,  that  there  are  yet  better  things  to  come 
than  have  been  since  the  first  calling  of  the  gentiles.  Among 
other  better  things  to  come,  the  recalling  of  the  Jews  is  most 
clearly  and  plentifully  foretold  by  the  prophets."  * 

Stephen  Marshall,  the  great  p  readier,  f  Herbert  Pal- 
mer,;}: the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the  Catechism, 
and  Antony  Tuckney,  his  successor,  with  many  others, 

*  "  Sermon  before  the  house  of  Peers, — '  The  progresse  of  divine  Providence,' " 
p.  29,  24  Sept.,  1645. 

t  "  Common's  Sermon,"  June  15,  1643.  "  Lord's  Sermon,"  Oct.  28,  1646, 
P-I3- 

J  "  Common's  Sermon,"  June  28,  1643,  p.  64. 


204:  PERPLEXITIES. 

held  this  opinion  without  attaching  it  to  the  millennium. 
Marshall  calls  it  "  the  glorious  times  which  Christ  hath 
promised  and  the  Church  long  looked  for."  Palmer 
calls  it  "  a  most  glorious  and  blessed  Reformation,"  and 
Tuckney  carefully  distinguishes  it  from  Premillenarian- 
ism.*  He  maintains  that  we  are  not  to  expect  a  per. 
sonal  reign  of  Christ  on  earth  : 

"  We  according  to  the  Scriptures  rejoice  in  the  first  advent,  in 
the  Incarnation,  the  second  we  expect  in  the  last  day,  but  a  third 
intermediate  one  we  do  not  acknowledge.  Hebrews  ix.  26-28 
we  read  that  Christ  appeared  once  to  do  away  with  sin  and  that 
he  is  to  appear  again  without  sin  ;  but  a  third  neither  there  nor 
anywhere  do  we  read.  We  read  indeed  of  that  illustrious  pha- 
nerosis,  epiphaneia,  parousia,  apokalupsis  of  our  Lord,  but  every- 
where of  that  as  it  were  unique  event  when  heaven  and  earth 
will  be  dissolved,  II.  Peter  iii.  10.  There  will  be  an  end  of  all 
things,  I.  Cor.  xv.  24,  which  by  their  opinion  are  not  to  be  until 
after  the  millennium  ;  when  all  shall  be  judged,  Matth.  xxv.  31, 
II.  Tim.  iv ;  all  the  saints  shall  be  gathered  to  Christ,  II.  Thess. 
ii.  i  ;  be  ever  with  him,  I.  Thess.  iv.  17,  John  xiv.  3 ;  and  enjoy  the 
beatific  vision  of  God,  I.  John  iii.  2  ;  which  accord  with  the  last 
day  and  not  with  their  millennium." 

After  thus  opposing  the  Premillennial  advent,  he 
asserts  as  strongly  as  Gouge,  Marshall,  and  Palmer  the 
hope  of  the  more  glorious  age  of  the  Church : 

"  That  Antichrist,  that  is  to  say,  the  Roman  is  to  be  destroyed, 
I  no-wise  doubt.  That  there  will  be  an  illustrious  conversion  of 
the  Jews,  if  not  of  all,  at  least  of  a  great  many  and  far  more  than 
ever  has  been,  I  firmly  believe.  Until  this  most  splendid  dawn 
shall  shine  forth,  that  a  gloomy  night  is  to  overshadow  the 
church,  soon  to  come,  I  fear,  and  immediately  before  the  rising 
of  the  sun,  most  dark,  I  greatly  fear.  But  that  sun  having  at 
length  arisen,  I  seem  to  myself  to  see  a  most  splendid  day  to  come, 
abounding  to  the  utmost  with  joy  and  at  the  same  time  external 


*  "  Pralectiones  Theologicae,"  Amst.,  1679,  pp.  185,  242. 


WHITHER  ?  205 

peace.     This  the  Apocalypse  seems  to  me  darkly  though  with 
sufficient  evidence  to  reveal." 

These  extracts  explain  Robert  Baylie's  statement  in 
his  letter  to  William  Spang,  September  5,  1645,  that 
"  The  most  of  the  chief  divines  here,  not  only  Independ- 
ents, but  others,  such  as  Twisse,  Marshall,  and  Palmer, 
and  many  more,  are  express  Chiliasts."  They  were 
Chiliasts  in  the  generic  sense,  embracing  all  those  who 
looked  forward  to  the  golden  age  of  the  Church ;  but 
Gouge,  Marshall,  Palmer,  Tuckney,  and  other  chief 
divines  were  not  Premillenarians.  Baylie  here  classes 
Twisse  with  Marshall  and  Palmer,  just  as  elsewhere  *  he 
classes  together  as  Chiliasts,  Piscator,  Alsted,  Mede, 
Archer,  Thomas  Goodwin,  and  Burroughs,  and  then 
separating  the  three  last  named,  charges  them  with  "  set- 
ting up  the  whole  fabric  of  Chiliasm." 

These  extracts  also  explain  the  exposition  of  the 
second  petition  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  in  the  Larger 
Catechism  for  which  Antony  Tuckney  was  chiefly 
responsible.  "  We  pray  that  the  kingdom  of  sin  and 
Satan  may  be  destroyed,  the  gospel  propagated  through- 
out the  world,  the  Jews  called,  the  fulness  of  the  Gen- 
tiles brought  in  ";  all  which  expresses  the  hope  of  these 
divines  in  a  more  glorious  condition  of  the  Church,  and 
this  without  any  idea  of  a  millennium,  and  entirely  con- 
sistent with  the  prayer  "  that  Christ  would  rule  in  our 
hearts  here,  and  hasten  the  time  of  his  second  coming, 
and  '  our  reigning  with  him  forever.'  "  f 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  Westminster  divines  left  the 
future  millennium  altogether  out  of  the  Standards,  and 
that  there  is  no  room  for  it  in  their  definitions.  Those 


*  "  Dissuasive  from  the  Errours  of  the  Time,"  London,  1645,  cap.  xi. 
t  Question  191. 


206  PERPLEXITIES. 

who  hold  to  this  opinion  entertain  an  extra-confessional 
doctrine.  I  entirely  agree  with  these  Westminster  di- 
vines. Gouge,  Marshall,  Palmer,  and  Tuckney  express 
my  views  exactly.  They  give  just  that  improvement  in 
the  ancient  church  doctrine  that  was  needed.  They  stop 
just  where  they  ought  to  stop.  But  when  recent  Presby- 
terian divines  go  further,  and  adopt  the  scheme  of  the 
Arminian,  Whitby,  they  take  a  position  which  suits 
quite  well  with  evangelical  Methodism,  but  which  is  not 
in  accord  with  Calvinism.  They  moreover  go  against  the 
Scriptures,  which  do  not  recognize  any  such  future  mil- 
lennium as  this  theory  professes. 

The  doctrine  of  a  future  millennium  is  not  so  innocent 
as  it  appears  to  be  on  the  surface.  It  changes  the  faith 
of  the  Church  in  the  imminency  of  the  second  advent  of 
Christ.  It  makes  the  millennium  the  great  hope  of  the 
future  instead  of  the  presence  of  the  Redeemer  Himself. 
The  Messiah  is  the  great  hope  of  the  Church,  the 
supireme  object  of  our  longing  and  striving,  the  bride- 
groom for  whose  presence  the  affianced  bride  prays  and 
agonizes.  But  the  current  theology  pushes  the  Messiah 
behind  the  millennium,  and  fixes  the  hope  of  men  upon 
an  illusion  and  a  delusion  of  human  conceit  and  folly. 

THE  MIDDLE  STATE. 

Among  infra-confessional  errors  the  most  serious  is  the 
neglect  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Middle  State.  The  Con- 
fession of  Faith  and  the  Catechisms  are  meagre  enough 
here.  The  Westminster  divines  were  themselves  in  the 
drift  of  antagonism  to  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of 
purgatory.  They  did  not  distinguish  between  the  doc- 
trine of  the  middle  state  in  the  ancient  Catholic  Church 
and  the  perversion  of  it  in  the  Roman  Catholic  doc- 
trine. They  threw  away  purgatory  without  substituting 


WHITHER?  207 

anything  in  its  place.  They  distinguish  the  middle 
state  between  death  and  the  resurrection,  but  they  prac- 
tically made  no  other  distinction  than  the  absence  of 
the  body  in  the  former  and  its  presence  in  the  latter. 
They  even  go  so  far  as  to  use  the  terms  Heaven  and 
Hell  indiscriminately  for  both  states.  The  Westminster 
doctrine  of  the  middle  state  finds  fullest  expression  in 
the  Larger  Catechism.  Three  states  after  death  are 
distinguished.  "The  communion  in  glory,  which  the 
members  of  the  invisible  church  have  with  Christ,  is  in 
this  life,  immediately  after  death,  and  at  last  perfected 
at  the  resurrection  and  day  of  judgment."  * 

The  state  immediately  after  death  is  thus  defined : 

"  The  communion  in  glory  with  Christ,  which  the  members  of 
the  invisible  church  enjoy  immediately  after  death,  is  in  that 
their  souls  are  then  made  perfect  in  holiness,  and  received  into 
the  highest  heavens,  where  they  behold  the  face  of  God  in  light 
and  glory  ;  waiting  for  the  full  redemption  of  their  bodies,  which 
even  in  death  continue  united  to  Christ,  and  rest  in  their  graves 
as  in  their  beds,  till  at  the  last  day  they  be  again  united  to  their 
souls.  Whereas  the  souls  of  the  wicked  are  at  their  death  cast 
into  hell,  where  they  remain  in  torments  and  utter  darkness ;  and 
their  bodies  kept  in  their  graves,  as  in  their  prisons,  until  the 
resurrection  and  judgment  of  the  great  day."  (• 

This  statement  ascribes  to  the  redeemed  holiness  and 
blessedness  in  heaven  with  God  and  Christ,  and  to  the 
unredeemed  a  wretched  abode  in  the  prison  of  hell 
until  the  judgment,  both  classes  in  a  disembodied  con- 
dition. What  is  affirmed  in  these  statements  is  affirmed 
of  the  state  immediately  after  death  and  not  of  the 
moment  of  time  immediately  after  death.  The  Confes- 
sion does  not  affirm  that  all  these  blessings  are  enjoyed 
by  the  righteous  immediately  when  they  die,  but  in  the 

*Q.8a.  tQ.  86. 


208  PERPLEXITIES. 

state  immediately  after  death.  It  does  not  affirm  that 
there  is  no  change  in  the  condition  of  the  righteous  in 
heaven,  or  of  the  imprisoned  souls  in  hell  during  the 
middle  state.  The  statements  apply  to  the  whole 
period  of  the  middle  state  and  not  to  the  moment  of 
time  that  begins  it.  The  Confession  teaches  that  all  the 
blessedness  and  misery  of  the  middle  state  are  prepara- 
tory to  the  judgment  which  first  assigns  all  mankind  to 
their  ultimate  conditions.  Those  who  recognize  no 
change  of  condition  in  the  middle  state  virtually  make 
it  a  blank  and  little  better  than  sleep,  unconsciousness, 
or  death.  The  Confession  teaches  that  the  state  is  a 
state  of  intense  activity  in  the  presence  of  God  on  the  part 
of  the  righteous,  involving  growth  in  holiness  and  blessed- 
ness. It  teaches  confinement  of  the  wicked  in  prisons  in 
torment,  involving  the  experience  of  suffering  and  an- 
guish. If  these  sufferings  are  not  remedial  they  must  be 
detrimental  and  involve  increase  of  sin,  guilt,  and  torment. 
Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge  deserves  great  credit  for  his  efforts 
to  regain  ground  in  the  doctrine  of  the  middle  state. 
I  agree  with  him  in  his  denunciation  of  those  who  would 
mutilate  the  Apostles'  Creed  by  striking  out  the  clause 
"  He  descended  into  Hell."  I  assent  to  his  statement  that 

"  This  creed  as  it  stands  is  a  part  of  the  binding  standards  of 
our  Church,  to  which  every  minister  and  elder  solemnly  sub- 
scribes, and  it  is,  after  the  Scriptures,  the  most  ancient,  vener- 
able and  generally  recognized  of  all  the  historic  literary  monu- 
ments of  the  Christian  Church.  It  seems  to  me  a  dreadful 
violation  of  the  bonds  which  connect  us  with  the  history  of 
Christian  faith  and  life,  and  of  the  common  ties  which  still  con- 
nect the  divided  segments  of  '  the  body  of  Christ '  for  any  one 
branch  of  that  Church  to  agitate  for  the  mutilation  of  the  ven- 
erable creed  which  belongs  to  the  whole  brotherhood  and  to  all 
the  sacred  past  as  well."  * 

*  "  Popular  Lectures,"  p.  431. 


WHITHER?  209 

I  very  much  regret  that  my  beloved  colleague,  Dr. 
Shedd,  is  guilty  of  this  error.  His  reference  to  the 
clause  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  "  He  descended  into  Hell," 
as  "  the  spurious  clause  ";  and  his  statement  that  "  it 
required  the  development  of  the  doctrine  of  purgatory, 
and  of  the  mediaeval  eschatology  generally,  in  order  to 
get  it  formally  into  the  doctrinal  system  of  both  the 
Eastern  and  Western  churches,"  *  are  both  of  them  un- 
historical.  There  are  few  doctrines  that  can  claim  such 
common  patristic  consent  as  this  doctrine,  and  it  is  at 
the  basis  of  ancient  and  mediaeval  eschatology  and  not 
a  later  development  out  of  it. 

Those  who  endeavor  to  commit  this  sin  against  the 
historic  Church  do  it  in  the  interest  of  an  attempt  to 
get  rid  of  the  doctrine  of  the  middle  state,  which  is 
based  upon  the  descent  of  Jesus  into  the  abode  of  the 
dead. 

Dr.  Hodge  is  also  worthy  of  all  praise  for  his  state- 
ment that 

"there  is  something  incomparably  higher  and  more  complete  to 
look  forward  to — when  all  the  redeemed  shall  pass  forever  from 
under  the  power  of  death,  and  each  entire  person,  instinct  with  life 
and  glorified,  shall  be  completely  conformed  to  the  likeness  of 
his  Lord  and  adjusted  to  his  environment  in  the  new  heavens 
and  the  new  earth."  f 

But  Dr.  Hodge  is  incautious  when  he  says  that 

"  the  intermediate  state  is  a  condition  of  death.  The  spirits  of 
men,  v/hile  their  bodies  remain  in  their  graves,  are  ghosts  or 
disembodied  souls.  The  condition  of  even  the  redeemed  dead, 
although  completely  delivered  from  sin  and  at  home  with  the 
Lord,  is  one  in  which  they  are  not  yet  completely  delivered  from 
all  the  consequences  of  sin."  J 


*  "  Dogmatic  Theology,"  pp.  603,  607.  t  "  Popular  Lectures,"  p.  426, 

t  Pages  424-5. 


210  PERPLEXITIES. 

Dr.  Hodge  recognizes  the  difference  between  the 
middle  and  the  ultimate  states,  but  he  does  not  appre- 
hend the  importance  of  the  middle  state  as  a  period  of 
intermediate  development  and  preparation  for  the  final 
state.  This  is  due  to  his  doctrine  of  immediate  sancti- 
fication  at  death,*  which  is  not  designed  by  the  West- 
minster divines  when  they  say  that  in  the  state  imme- 
diately after  death  we  are  made  perfect  in  holiness. 
They  had  no  design  of  contradicting  their  doctrine  of 
progressive  sanctification.  If  Dr.  Hodge  had  retained 
the  doctrine  of  progressive  sanctification  and  had  recog- 
nized that  it  went  on  during  the  middle  state  he  would 
never  have  recognized  the  middle  state  as  a  condition 
of  death.  The  middle  state  is  the  great  state  of  sanc- 
tification for  believers  and  of  degradation  for  unbe- 
lievers. 

"  As  for  the  pious,  intercourse  with  the  ungodly,  to  which  they 
were  subject  on  earth,  ceases  after  death ;  they  suffer  nothing 
more  from  them,  not  even  temptation.  The  connection  of  be- 
lievers with  Christ  is  so  intimate  that  death  and  Hades  have  no 
power  over  it.  On  the  contrary  death  brings  them  an  increase 
of  freedom  from  temptations  and  disturbances,  as  well  as  of 
blessedness.  For  believers  there  is  no  more  punishment,  but 
there  is  growth,  a  further  laying  aside  of  defects,  an  invigoration 
through  the  greater  nearness  of  the  Lord  which  they  may  ex- 
perience, and  through  the  more  lively  hope  of  their  consumma- 
tion." .  .  .  .  "  In  this  life  the  realities  of  the  sensuous  world 
are  the  objects  of  sight,  the  spiritual  world  is  the  object  of 
faith.  Then,  when  the  physical  side  is  wanting  to  the  spirit, 
these  poles  will  be  reversed.  To  the  departed  spirits  the 
spiritual  world  whether  in  good  or  evil,  will  appear  to  be  the 
real  existence  resting  on  immediate  evidence.  Since,  then,  such 
internal  soul-life  unveils  the  ground  of  the  soul  more  openly, 
the  retiring  into  self  has  for  believers  the  effect  of  purifying  and 
educating.  It  serves  to  obliterate  all  stains,  to  harmonize  the 

*  See  p.  147. 


WHITHER  ?  211 

whole  inner  being,  in  keeping  with  the  good  disposition  brought 
over  from  the  other  life  or  later  acquired;  thus  there  will  be  for 
them  no  idle  waiting  for  the  judgment  but  a  progressing  in  knowl- 
edge, blessedness,  and  holiness,  in  communion  with  Christ  and 
the  heavenly  company." 

"  But  in  regard  to  those  who  died  unbelieving,  or  not  yet  be- 
lieving, to  them  also  the  ground  of  their  souls  is  laid  bare; 
hence  also  their  impurity,  their  discord,  and  alienation  from 
God,  is  unveiled."  .  ..."  If,  instead  of  repenting  and  being 
converted,  instead  of  growing  in  self-knowledge  and  knowledge 
of  God  as  holy,  and  yet  gracious  in  Christ,  they  prefer  to  con- 
tinue in  evil ;  then  the  form  of  their  sin  becomes  more  spiritual, 
more  demoniacal,  in  accordance  with  their  state  from  which  this 
world  recedes  farther  and  farther,  and  thus  it  ripens  for  the 
judgment."* 

Lest  any  one  should  stumble  at  these  excellent 
thoughts  owing  to  the  name  of  Dorner,  I  shall  conclude 
with  the  wise  words  of  John  Wesley  : 

"  I  cannot  therefore  but  think  that  all  those  who  are  with  the 
rich  man  in  the  unhappy  division  of  hades  will  remain  there, 
howling  and  blaspheming,  cursing  and  looking  upwards,  till  they 
are  cast  into  '  the  everlasting  fire,  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his 
angels.'  And  on  the  other  hand,  can  we  reasonably  doubt  but 
that  those  who  are  now  in  paradise  in  Abraham's  bosom,  all 
those  holy  souls  who  have  been  discharged  from  the  body  from 
the  beginning  of  the  world  unto  this  day,  will  be  continually  ri- 
pening for  heaven,  will  be  perpetually  holier  and  happier,  till 
they  are  received  into  the  '  kingdom  prepared  for  them  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world.'  "t 

PREMILLENARIANISM. 

There  are  several  contra-confessional  errors  now  prev- 
alent in  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  department  of 
Eschatology.  A  group  of  these  is  associated  with  the 
term  Premillenarianism.  .  These  errors  are : 


*  Dorner,  "  Future  State,"  pp.  106-8. 
•\  "Works,"  cxxvi.,  sermon  "On  Faith." 


212  PERPLEXITIES. 

(i).  There  is  a  resurrection  of  the  bodies  of  the  saints 
at  the  beginning  of  the  millennium,  but  the  resurrection 
of  the  wicked  is  postponed  until  after  the  millennium. 
This  is  against  the  Larger  Catechism,  which  teaches 
"  that  the  bodies  of  believers  rest  in  their  graves  as  in 
their  beds,  till  at  the  last  day  they  be  again  united  to 
their  souls."  *  "  We  are  to  believe  that  at  the  last  day, 
there  shall  be  a  general  resurrection  of  the  dead,  both  of 
the  just  and  unjust."  f 

(2).  The  second  advent  of  Jesus  Christ  introduces  the 
millennium,  and  there  is  to  be  a  third  advent  at  the  day 
of  judgment.  This  is  against  the  Larger  Catechism, 
which  teaches  that 

"  Christ  is  to  be  exalted  in  his  coming  again  to  judge  the  world, 
in  that  he,  who  was  unjustly  judged  and  condemned  by  wicked 
men,  shall  come  again  at  the  last  day  in  great  power,  and  in  the 
full  manifestation  of  his  own  glory,  and  of  his  Father's,  with  all 
his  holy  angels,  with  a  shout,  with  the  voice  of  the  archangel, 
and  with  the  trumpet  of  God,  to  judge  the  world  in  righteous- 
ness." t 

(3).  There  are  two  judgments :  one  at  the  beginning 
of  the  millennium,  and  another  after  the  last  conflict 
that  follows  the  millennium.  This  is  against  the  Con- 
fession, which  teaches  that 

"God  hath  appointed  a  day,  wherein  he  will  judge  the  world  in 
righteousness  by  Jesus  Christ,  to  whom  all  power  and  judgment 
is  given  of  the  Father.  In  which  day,  not  only  the  apostate  an- 
gels shall  be  judged  ;  but  likewise  all  persons,  that  have  lived  upon 
earth,  shall  appear  before  the  tribunal  of  Christ,  to  give  an  ac- 
count of  their  thoughts,  words,  and  deeds ;  and  to  receive  ac- 
cording to  what  they  have  done  in  the  body,  whether  good  or 
evil."  § 

Thus  Premillenarianism  presents  an  entirely  different 
scheme  and  order  of  events  in  the  doctrine  of  Last 

*  Q.  86.  t  Q.  87.  t  Q.  56.  §  Chap,  miil 


WHITHER?  213 

Things  from  that  taught  in  the  Westminster  Standards, 
teaching  two  future  advents,  two  resurrections,  and  two 
judgments,  and  fixing  the  attention  of  men  upon  the 
first  advent  to  establish  the  millennium,  instead  of  the 
advent  at  the  last  day  to  determine  the  everlasting  future 
of  all  men  and  of  angels.  The  Premillenarians  en- 
deavor to  establish  their  right  to  hold  their  opinions  in 
the  Presbyterian  Church  by  laying  stress  upon  the  West- 
minster doctrine  of  the  imminency  of  the  advent, 
which  those  who  hold  the  current  views  of  the  millen- 
nium cannot  do.  The  alternative  is  not  between  these 
two  doctrines.  They  forget  the  orthodox  doctrine  of 
the  millennium,  which  was  held  by  the  Westminster 
divines  in  common  with  the  Reformers  and  the  ancient 
and  mediaeval  Church.  They  also  seek  to  find  Premil- 
lenarians among  the  Westminster  divines  on  the  basis 
of  Baylie's  statement  that  the  chief  English  divines 
were  Chiliasts.  This  we  have  already  explained  by 
showing  that  Baylie  used  Chiliast  as  a  generic  term,  and 
he  did  not  mean  thereby  Premillenarian.*  There  were 
several  Premillenarians  in  the  Westminster  Assembly. 
The  chief  of  these  were  Thomas  Goodwin  and  Jer.  Bur- 
roughs, the  Independents.  Twisse,  the  first  prolocutor, 
also  seems  to  have  inclined  to  a  moderate  Premillena- 
rianism,  but  he  had  not  committed  himself  to  it  in  any 
public  manner.  Besides  these,  Francis  Woodcock  is  the 
only  one  who  was  certainly  a  Premillenarian.  Twisse 
and  Burroughs  died  before  the  doctrinal  standards  were 
composed.  Goodwin  was  influential  among  the  outside 
Independents,  but  he  was  out  of  harmony  with  the 
Westminster  divines  in  many  questions  of  Church  gov- 
ernment and  doctrine,  and  had  little  influence  in  the 

*  See  p.  205, 


214  PERPLEXITIES. 

composition  of  the  Westminster  Standards.  On  the 
other  hand,  Premillenarianism  was  strongly  urged  by  a 
number  of  able  writers  of  the  time,  and  the  Westmin- 
ster divines  were  compelled  to  take  issue  with  them. 
The  chief  of  these  were  John  Archer,*  a  former  asso- 
ciate of  Goodwin  at  Arnheim ;  Robert  Manton,f  Na- 
thaniel Homes,:}:  and  William  Aspinwall.§ 

The  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  seven  Baptist  Churches 
issued  in  1645-6,  gave  expression  to  Premillenarianism, 
and  it  became  the  special  doctrine  of  the  English  Bap- 
tists and  the  Fifth-monarchy  men.  Thomas  Bakewell,| 
Alexander  Petrie,^[  Robert  Baylie,**  Ephraim  Paget,ft 
Thomas  Edwards,$J  Edward  Featley,§§  Alex.  Ross, If 
and  others  sharply  attacked  Premillenarianism  as  heresy. 
I  shall  give  a  few  specimens  of  renunciation  of  this  error 
by  the  Westminster  divines. 

Henry  Wilkinson  says :  "  Christ  shall  reign  (though  I 
cannot  understand  personally  on  earth,  yet)  I  believe 
eternally  in  the  heavens."  '  Rutherford  says :  "  I  mean 
not  any  such  visible  reign  of  Christ  on  earth  as  the  mil- 
lenaries fancy."  °°  Joseph  Caryl  says:  " I  assert  not  his 


*  "  Personal  Reign  of  Christ  on  Earth,"  1642 ;  "  Zion's  Joy  in  her  King," 
1643- 

t  "  Israel's  Redemption,"  1642 ;  "  Israel's  Redemption,  redeemed,"  1646. 
J  "  Resurrection  Revealed,"  1653. 
§  "Brief  Description  of  the  Fifth  Monarchy,"  1653. 
|  "  Saints'  Inheritance,"  1643 ;  "  Confutation  of  Divers  Errors,"  1646. 
U  "  Chiliomastic,"  1644. 

**  "  Dissuasive  from  the  Errours  of  the  Time,"  1645. 
tt  "  Description  of  the  Hereticks  and  Sectaries  of  these  latter  Times,"  1645. 
It  "  Gangraena,"  1646.  §§  "  Dippers  Dipt,"  6th  edition,  1651. 

||  "  View  of  All  Religions,"  xii.  9,  2d  edition,  1655. 
0  "  Two  Treatises,"  p.  97. 
00  "  Common's  Sermon,"  Jan.  31,  '43,  p.  56. 


WHITHER  ? 


215 


opinion  about  the  personal  reign  of  Christ."     And  Geo. 
Gillespie  says : 

"  That  which  I  have  said  from  grounds  of  Scripture  concerning 
a  more  glorious,  yea,  a  more  peacable  condition  of  the  Church  to 
be  yet  looked  for,  is  acknowledged  by  some  of  our  sound  and 
learned  writers  who  have  had  occasion  to  express  their  judgment 
about  it  and  it  hath  no  affinity  with  the  opinion  of  an  earthly  or 
temporal  kingdom  of  Christ,  or  of  Jesus'  building  again  of  Jeru- 
salem and  the  material  temple,  and  then  obtaining  a  dominion 
above  all  other  nations  and  the  like."* 

We  have  already  cited  Gouge  and  Tuckney.f  We 
might  also  cite  Gower,  Lightfoot,  Gataker,  Seaman,  and 
others.  And  I  challenge  any  one  to  produce  an  extract 
from  any  Presbyterian  member  of  the  Westminster  As- 
sembly save  Twisse  and  Woodcock  that  will  indicate 
even  such  a  mild  type  of  Premillenarianism  as  these  two 
divines  seem  to  have  entertained.  In  the  meanwhile  we 
may  refer  to  two  official  utterances  that  seem  to  deter- 
mine the  question.  The  Westminster  divines  in  their 
Revision  of  the  XXXIX  Articles  seem  to  have  de- 
signed to  rule  out  an  advent  of  Christ  to  the  earth  prior 
to  the  ultimate  judgment.  We  shall  place  in  their  midst 
the  statement  of  the  Irish  Articles  that  influenced  the 
Westminster  divines  more  than  any  others : 


THE  XXXIX  ART. 

IRISH  ARTICLES. 

WESTMIN.  REVISION. 

And  there  sitteth 
until  he  return  to 
judge  all  men  at  the 
last  day. 

And  there  sitteth 
•at  the  right  hand  of 
the  Father  until  he 
return  to  judge  all 
men  at  the  last  day. 

And  there  sitteth 
until  he  return  to 
judge  all  men  at  the 
general  resurrection 
of  the  body  at  the 
last  day. 

*  "  Common's  Sermon,"  March  27,  '44. 


t  See  pp.  203-204. 


216  PERPLEXITIES. 

The  general  resurrection  of  the  body  at  the  last  day 
excludes  the  prior  resurrection  of  the  saints  at  the  be- 
ginning of  a  millennium.  The  remaining  of  Christ  in 
heaven  until  the  general  resurrection  excludes  His  ad- 
vent to  earth  at  the  beginning  of  the  millennium. 

The  Provincial  Assembly  of  London,  embracing  all 
the  Westminster  divines  having  positions  in  London,  as 
well  as  all  the  Presbyterian  ministers  of  the  city,  in  their 
official  jus  divinum  signed  by  moderator  and  clerks,  but 
composed  chiefly  by  Edmund  Calamy,  and  designed  to  be 
the  official  reply  of  the  Presbyterian  party  to  the  ques- 
tions of  Parliament,*  commits  the  whole  Presbyterian 
body  against  the  Premillenarian  error : 

"  That  there  were  many  corruptions  which  crept  into  the 
church  in  the  very  infancy  of  it,  and  were  generally  received  as 
Apostolic  traditions,  which  yet  notwithstanding  are  not  pleaded 
for  by  our  Episcopal  men,  but  many  of  them  confessedly 
acknowledged  to  be  errors  and  mistakes,  witness  first,  the  mil- 
lenary opinion  which  Justin  Martyr  saith,  That  he  and  all  in  all 
parts  orthodox  Christians  held  it."t 

The  Westminster  Standards  agree  with  the  Scriptures 
in  making  the  great  crisis  of  the  world,  the  second  ad- 
vent to  judge  the  risen  world ;  Premillenarians  make 
it  the  second  advent  to  introduce  the  millennium  ;  some 
dogmatic  divines  make  the  crisis  the  private  judgment 
at  death. 

The  Confession  closes  with  the  watchword  of  Paul  and 
John,  and  of  the  apostolic  Church  ;  yes,  of  all  ages  until 
the  i8th  century: 

"  Come,  Lord  Jesus,  come  quickly.     Amen." 

The  Premillenarians  make  that  prayer  in  view  of  the 
advent  to  introduce  the  millennium,  but  the  West- 


*  See  pp.  176-177.  t  "Jus  Divinum,"  Appendix,  p.  100. 


WHITHER?  21 7 

minster  divines  made  it  with  regard  to  the  advent  for 
judgment  after  the  millennium.  But  it  is  evident  that 
no  one  who  believes  that  at  least  a  thousand  years  must 
intervene  between  himself  and  the  advent  of  Christ 
can  make  that  prayer  or  have  any  real  faith  in  the  im- 
minency  of  the  advent.  Large  numbers  of  the  Presby- 
terian ministry  of  our  day  cannot  subscribe  to  this  clos- 
ing section  of  the  Westminster  Confession  in  its  historic 
sense,  and  are  really  as  contra-confessional  at  this  point 
as  the  Premillenarians  are  at  other  points. 

PROBATION  AFTER  DEATH. 

In  recent  times  the  doctrine  of  a  probation  after 
death  for  those  who  have  had  no  probation  in  this  life, 
has  sprung  up  in  the  Christian  Church,  chiefly  with 
the  unfolding  of  philosophical  ethics,  and  has  gained 
the  adherence  of  not  a  few  able  divines  in  Great 
Britain  and  America.  The  doctrine  of  a  probation 
after  death  depends  upon  the  doctrine  of  a  proba- 
tion in  this  life.  The  doctrine  that  this  life  is  a  pro- 
bation was  not  known  to  the  Reformers  or  the  West- 
minster divines.  It  is  a  doctrine  that  is  inconsistent 
with  Calvinistic  principles.  These  represent  that  our 
race  had  a  probation  once  for  all  in  Adam  at  the 
beginning  of  human  history  and  were  condemned  for 
failure  in  that  probation,  so  that  we  are  a  lost  race, 
not  under  probation,  but  under  a  curse  and  needing 
above  all  things  redemption  through  Jesus  Christ,  The 
doctrine  that  this  life  is  a  probation  was  first  introduced 
into  modern  theology  by  Daniel  Whitby  in  1710,  in  his 
attack  on  the  Five  Points  of  Calvinism.  It  was  first 
made  the  common  property  of  modern  British  and 
American  theology  by  Bishop  Butler  in  his  "Analogy," 
which  has  been  a  universal  text-book  of  Apologetics. 


218  PERPLEXITIES. 

In  this  way  it  gradually  took  possession  of  even  Calvin- 
istic  writers,  and  warped  the  theology  of  the  most  con- 
servative divines. 

Dr.  E.  D.  Morris  says  that :  "  One  of  the  radical  vices 
in  the  theology  of  Dorner "  "  lies  in  his  low  and  scant 
perception  of  this  great  ordinating  doctrine "  of  the 
Moral  Government  of  God.  "  The  declension  from  the 
high  position  of  Butler  and  his  compeers  on  this  doc- 
trine, has  been  a  most  serious  calamity  to  more  recent 
English  theology  also."  *  But  the  New  England  doc- 
trine of  the  Moral  Government  of  God  is  only  a  demo- 
cratic twist  in  the  doctrine  of  divine  sovereignty  and  is 
not  regarded  by  European  divines  as  an  advance  in 
theology.  Dr.  Morris  admits  that  its  doctrine  of  pro- 
bation is  a  departure  from  the  older  Calvinism.f  It  is 
really  a  provincial  and  temporary  freak  in  theology 
which  has  already  been  abandoned  by  thoughtful  British 
divines  and  which  will  soon  disappear  from  American 
theology.  Dr.  Morris  cannot  stand  on  this  contra-con- 
fessional  doctrine  of  a  probation  in  this  life  and  then 
deny  its  logical  consequence,  the  extension  of  that 
probation  into  the  middle  state. 

If  this  life  be  a  probation,  then  there  is  no  ground  in 
the  Scriptures  or  in  the  Westminster  symbols  or  in  sound 
reason,  why  this  probation  should  not  be  extended  into 
the  middle  state  for  those  who  have  had  no  probation 
here.  I  have  examined  all  the  arguments  adduced  by 
Dr.  Morris  and  others  in  support  of  their  position, 
that  probation  stops  with  death,  and  find  that  these  will 
not  bear  criticism.  The  Scriptures  and  the  Confession 
alike  have  the  underlying  doctrine  that  this  life  is  not  a 
probation,  and  therefore  there  are  no  reasons  presented 


*  "  Is  there  Salvation  after  Death  ?  "  p.  163.  t  I.e.,  p.  17* 


WHITHER?  219 

in  them  for  bringing  this  probation  to  a  halt  at  death. 
They  teach  that  our  race  is  a  lost  race  and  that  the  great 
problem  is  to  redeem  as  many  of  them  as  possible.  It 
may  be  that  there  is  no  hope  of  regeneration  after  death, 
or  of  the  initiation  of  the  order  of  salvation  in  the 
middle  state,  but  this  is  a  very  different  doctrine  from 
the  doctrine  that  human  probation  ends  with  death.  Dr. 
Morris  admits  that  those  dying  in  infancy  are  exempt 
from  probation,*  but  claims  that  "  in  some  way  or 
other,  and  to  some  extent  or  other,  God  is  actually  try- 
ing and  testing  every  human  being  who  has  reached 
moral  consciousness,  as  to  the  great  alternatives  of  right 
or  wrong,  duty  or  pleasure,  disobedience  or  disloyalty  to 
Him  ";  f  and  even  goes  so  far  as  to  maintain  what  the 
Confession  regards  as  "  very  pernicious  and  to  be  de- 
tested":}: when  he  says:  "The  multitudes  whom  the 
great  Swiss  reformer  anticipated  seeing  in  the  celestial 
life  may,  by  the  large  grace  of  God  bringing  them  to  re- 
pentance and  obedience  during  their  earthly  pilgrimage, 
possibly  attain  with  us  to  that  beatific  home."  §  Dr. 
Prentiss  well  says : 

"  The  probationary  conception  of  this  life,  at  all  events,  is 
wholly  inapplicable  to  that  large  portion  of  the  human  race  who 
die  in  infancy.  They  are  confessedly  incapable  of  a  probation 
in  any  proper  sense  of  that  term.  We  cannot  think  of  them  as 
here  passing  through  a  moral  trial,  on  the'result  of  which  de- 
pends their  weal  or  woe  in  the  next  world.  They  do  neither 
good  or  evil  here,  nor  will  they  be  rewarded  or  punished  there. 
But  a  religious  theory  of  this  life,  which  fails  to  meet  the  case  of 
so  large  a  portion  of  the  human  race,  must  needs  be,  to  say  the 
least,  a  partial,  inadequate  theory."  || 

We  must    admit    that    the   innumerable  millions  of 


*  A  c.,  p.  196.  t  /.  c.,  p.  166.  J  See  p.  121.  §  /.  c.,  p.  190. 

|  Presbyterian  Review,  vol.  iv.,  p.  569. 


220  PERPLEXITIES. 

heathen  who  have  passed  into  the  middle  state  have 
had  no  real  probation.  They  have  had  sufficient  of  the 
light  of  nature  to  condemn  them  as  sinners.  But  the 
Westminster  Confession  teaches  that  they  have  no  light 
of  nature  sufficient  to  save  them,  and  they  have  had  no 
offer  of  the  grace  of  the  Gospel.*  Such  a  condition  of 
affairs  is  no  probation — they  have  had  no  opportunity 
whatever  of  salvation  according  to  the  Westminster 
scheme.  And  the  probation  "  in  some  way  or  other,  and 
to  some  extent  or  other,"  of  Dr.  Morris,  is  rather  an  in- 
definite sort  of  a  thing  to  hang  the  everlasting  destiny 
of  any  man  upon. 

If  this  life  is  a  probation  upon  which  our  everlasting 
future  depends,  then  in  order  to  have  a  fair  trial  and  an 
equitable  judgment,  it  is  necessary  that  all  should  have 
a  true  and  a  complete  probation.  The  lesser  stages  of 
probation  must  lead  up  to  the  higher  stages,  until  every 
opportunity  has  been  rejected  and  the  only  unpardon- 
able sin  has  been  committed.  The  doctrine  that  this 
life  is  a  probation,  leads  inevitably  to  the  position  that 
the  middle  state  is  a  still  larger  field  for  probation,  for 
the  vast  majority  of  our  race  who  have  had  no  probation 
here ;  in  which  we  must  conceive  of  a  preaching  of  the 
Gospel,  regeneration,  faith,  justification,  and  the  entire 
order  of  salvation  begun  and  carried  on.  Those  who 
take  the  contra-confessional  position  that  this  life  is  a 
probation,  have  no  ground  of  resistance  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  continuance  of  that  probation  in  the  middle 
state,  until  all  have  had  the  opportunity  either  of  ac- 
cepting Christ  as  their  Saviour  or  of  committing  the  un- 
pardonable sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit.  They  cannot 
hold  probation  here  without  following  the  Andover 

*  See  p.  120. 


WHITHER?  221 

theory  and  holding  probation  there.  Christian  ethics 
will  inevitably  compel  every  probationist  to  become 
an  out  and  out  probationist  for  this  world  and  for  the 
next. 

Calvinists  must  give  up  this  contra-confessional  doc- 
trine altogether  and  recover  their  position  on  the  West- 
minster doctrine  of  original  sin  and  of  redemption.  The 
question  we  have  to  determine,  as  Calvinists  is  whether 
the  divine  grace  is  limited  in  its  operation  to  this  world 
of  ours,  whether  the  divine  act  of  regeneration  may  take 
place  in  the  middle  state  or  not,  whether  any  part  of 
the  order  of  salvation  is  carried  on  there  or  not,  and  if 
any  part,  what  part.  We  have  already  seen  that  the 
divine  grace  is  not  confined  to  this  world,  that  sanctifi- 
cation  by  the  divine  grace  must  continue  in  the  middle 
state.*  But«we  see  no  reason  why  the  divine  grace  may 
not  regenerate  all  the  elect  before  they  leave  this  world. 
If  the  divine  grace  may  be  applied  to  the  millions  of 
infants  dying  in  infancy,  why  not  also  to  millions  of 
adult  heathen  ? 

These  questions  force  themselves  upon  us  in  connec- 
tion with  our  hopes  for  the  salvation  of  infants  and 
heathen,  and  they  must  be  answered  before  there  can  be 
any  comfort  or  stability  in  modern  theology. 

I  agree  with  my  colleague,  Dr.  Prentiss,  in  preferring 
to  trust  with  Calvinism  to  the  electing  grace  of  God 
rather  than  to  the  modern  notion  of  human  probation. 

"  Universal  infant  salvation,  then,  does  not  and  cannot  stand 
alone  ;  it  has  a  most  important  bearing  upon  the  whole  soterio- 
logical  doctrine.  It  shows  how  inconceivably  wide  and  deep  is 
God's  mercy  in  Jesus  Christ.  It  shows  that,  speaking  after  the 
manner  of  men,  He  is  doing  all  He  can  do  for  the  actual  re- 
demption of  the  world ;  nothing  keeps  any  soul  from  the  gracious 

*  See  p.  210. 


222  PERPLEXITIES. 

operation  of  His  infinite  love  and  pity  but  its  own  wilful  choice 
of  evil  and  refusal  of  the  good.  '  Nihil  ardet  in  inferno  nisi  pro- 
pria  voluntas.'  As  I  live,  saith  the  Lord  God,  I  have  no  pleasure 
in  the  death  of  the  wicked ;  but  that  the  "wicked  turn  away  from  his 
way  and  live"  ....  "A  theodicy  that  shall  meet  the  claims  of 
Christian  thought  and  satisfy  the  cravings  of  the  Christian  heart, 
or  charm  to  silence  its  doubts  and  fears,  must  vindicate  the  ways 
of  Providence  toward  the  little  children,  as  well  as  toward  the 
full-grown  men  and  women.  Let  us  hope  that  as  the  kingdom 
of  God  comes  nearer  and  nearer,  and  its  heavenly  light,  whether 
shining  through  the  ever-living  Word,  in  the  inspired  Scriptures, 
or  in  believing  souls,  is  more  fully  comprehended,  such  a  the- 
odicy may  yet  bless  the  world.  Certainly,  a  great  step  toward 
it  will  have  been  taken  when  the  doctrine,  that  the  countless 
myriads  of  the  race  who  die  in  infancy,  instead  of  being  annihi- 
lated or  lost,  are  forever  with  the  Lord,  shall  become  the  com- 
mon faith  of  the  Church,  and,  at  the  same  time,  all  the  theolog- 
ical consequences  of  the  doctrine  shall  be  recognized  and  as- 
signed their  rightful  place  in  the  system  of  Christian  truth."  * 

It  is  evident  that  in  the  whole  field  of  Eschatology 
there  is  great  perplexity  in  the  minds  of  the  theologians 
and  the  ministry,  as  well  as  of  the  people.  The  middle 
state  must  be  opened  up  in  the  discussions  that  are  in 
progress.  There  must  be  the  fullest  liberty  in  this  de- 
bate. Those  who  depart  from  the  Confession  in  the  di- 
rection of  narrowness,  limiting  the  grace  of  God,  cannot 
in  the  name  of  orthodoxy  condemn  those  who  are  more 
generous  in  their  views  of  the  operation  of  the  divine 
grace  in  the  middle  state.  Those  who  claim  to  be  conser- 
vatives in  their  departures  from  the  Confession  have  no 
right  to  censure  those  who  recognize  themselves  as  pro- 
gressives. In  some  respects  the  conservatives  are  the 
greater  sinners.  All  should  heed  the  great  apostle  to 
the  Gentiles  in  his  words :  "  Therefore  thou  art  inexcus- 
able, O  man,  whosoever  thou  art  that  judgest,  for  wherein 

*  Presbyterian  Review,  vol.  iv.,  pp.  578-580. 


WHITHER?  223 

thou  judgest  another,  thou  condemnest  thyself,  for  thou 
that  judge st  doest  the  same  things" 

We  have  tested  the  current  orthodoxy  by  the  West- 
minster Standards  and  have  found  that  it  is  not  in  ac- 
cord with  the  Westminster  Confession,  even  as  a  system, 
for  there  are  many  differences  from  articles  and  sections 
that  are  essential  to  the  system.  What  does  it  matter 
if  there  be  adherence  to  the  hard  doctrines  of  Calvinism 
if  there  is  discord  with  the  chief  characteristics  of  the 
Puritan  Confession  ?  Francis  Turretine  is  not  the 
standard  of  orthodoxy  for  Presbyterians  ;  but  the  West- 
minster Symbols  are  the  secondary  standards  and  the 
Word  of  God  the  primary  standard.  The  Presbyterian 
Church  as  a  Church  tolerates  contra-confessional  doc- 
trines of  the  Church  and  the  Sacraments  and  the  Last 
Things  in  large  numbers  of  its  teachers  and  pastors. 
The  characteristic  doctrines  of  Puritanism,  as  contained 
in  the  middle  section  of  the  Confession,  such  as  repent- 
ance, saving  faith,  assurance  of  grace,  sanctification,  and 
good  works,  have  been  neglected  by  our  most  eminent 
theologians  and  ministers.  In  the  first  eleven  chapters 
there  have  been  great  contest,  excessive  definitions,  and 
assertions  of  the  claims  of  orthodoxy,  but  even  here  the 
breadth  and  depth  of  the  Standards  have  not  been  ap- 
prehended. In  the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  and  of 
justification  by  faith,  the  two  great  principles  of  Prot- 
estantism, not  a  few  recognized  leaders  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  have  departed  from  the  Westminster  doc- 
trine so  far  as  to  undermine  and  hazard  these  most  pre- 
cious achievements  of  the  Reformation. 

The  Westminster  system  has  been  virtually  displaced 
by  the  teachings  of  the  dogmatic  divines.  It  is  no 
longer  practically  the  standard  of  the  faith  of  the  Pres- 


224  PERPLEXITIES. 

byterian  Church.  The  Catechisms  are  not  taught  in  our 
churches,  the  Confession  is -not  expounded  in  our  theo- 
logical seminaries.  The  Presbyterian  Church  is  not  or- 
thodox, judged  by  its  own  Standards.  It  has  neither 
the  old  orthodoxy  nor  the  new  orthodoxy.  It  is  in  per- 
plexity. It  is  drifting  toward  an  unknown  and  a  mys- 
terious future. 


CHAPTER    IX. 
BARRIERS. 

WE  have  thus  far  considered  the  Westminster  Sym- 
bols as  the  tests  of  orthodoxy  and  have  seen  that  the 
traditional  theology  in  the  Presbyterian  churches  is  not 
in  harmony  therewith.  If  we  should  take  the  Articles 
of  the  Church  of  England  as  a  test  we  would  find  that 
the  Episcopal  churches  are  in  a  similar  situation.  We 
would  find  that  the  Methodist,  the  Baptist,  the  Lutheran, 
and  indeed  all  denominations  of  Christians  have  de- 
parted from  their  standards  and  are  in  the  drift  of  the 
iQth  century. 

And  this  is  exactly  what  we  ought  to  expect  from  the 
history  of  the  Church  in  former  ages.  The  Church  of 
Jesus  Christ  cannot  long  remain  stationary.  Action  and 
reaction,  ebb  and  flow,  advance  and  decline  govern  all 
nature  and  all  history.  Why  should  any  one  have  the 
presumption  to  suppose  that  the  I7th  century  was  the 
goal  of  Christian  history,  or  that  the  definitions  then 
made  are  the  final  doctrines  for  all  time  ?  The  very  fact 
that  the  i/th  century  was  a  century  of  discord,  of  strife, 
of  division  in  the  churches,  should  teach  us  to  look  with 
some  suspicion  upon  its  work. 

As  a  Presbyterian,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  Chris- 
tian theology  did  not  reach  its  perfection  in  the  West- 
minster Assembly.  The  Westminster  divines  made  no 

(225) 


226  BARRIERS. 

claim  to  infallibility.  They  made  an  advance  in  Chris- 
tian theology  beyond  any  of  their  predecessors,  but  this 
ought  to  have  encouraged  their  successors  to  advance 
still  further  the  banner  of  Christian  knowledge. 

Christian  doctrine  advances  through  the  centuries 
under  the  guidance  of  the  divine  Spirit  until  He  has  led 
the  Church  into  all  truth. 

In  some  doctrines  the  Church  has  reached  definite 
conclusions  that  will  abide  forever.  The  consensus  of 
Christendom  is  a  testimony  of  incalculable  value.  But 
there  are  many  doctrines  respecting  which  there  is  dis- 
cord in  the  Church,  and  where  there  must  be  an  advance 
in  order  that  this  discord  may  pass  away  and  concord  be 
attained.  There  are  other  doctrines  to  which  the  Church 
has  given  little  attention  and  respecting  which  there 
have  been  no  official  determinations  in  any  of  the 
Creeds. 

We  have  already  considered  at  some  length  the  estab- 
lished doctrines  of  the  Church  upon  which  we  are  to 
build,  and  have  separated  them  from  the  errors  of  dog- 
maticians  and  popular  prejudice.  We  reserve  the  doc- 
trines that  the  Church  has  still  to  unfold  until  our  next 
chapter.  We  propose  in  this  chapter  to  consider  the 
doctrines  that  divide  the  Churches  and  the  barriers  to 
Christian  union. 

DIVINE   RIGHT  OF  CHURCH   GOVERNMENT. 

The  first  great  barrier  to  Christian  union  is  the  theory 
of  submission  to  a  central  ecclesiastical  authority  claiming 
divine  right  of  government. 

This  is  the  great  sin  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church, 
which  makes  the  pope  at  Rome,  when  speaking  ex 
cathedra,  the  centre  of  unity  and  seat  of  absolute  au- 
thority to  decide  all  questions  of  religion,  doctrine,  and 


WHITHER?  227 

morals.  The  way  to  union  according  to  this  theory  is 
to  dissolve  all  other  Christian  churches.  All  Christians 
must  receive  confirmation  from  Roman  Catholic  bishops, 
and  so  enter  the  communiorr  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  and  then  submit  with  unflinching  allegiance  to 
the  authority  of  the  pope  and  his  bishops.  Such  a 
union  requires,  on  the  one  side,  the  forfeiture  of  the 
right  of  private  judgment  and  the  violation  of  the  lib- 
erty of  conscience ;  and  on  the  other  side  the  severance 
of  the  union  and  communion  of  the  believer  with  his 
enthroned  Saviour,  and  the  re-establishment  of  union 
and  communion  through  the  mediation  of  the  priests, 
bishops,  and  pope/  It  makes  the  visible  Church,  in  a 
single  one  of  its  historical  forms,  the  only  means  of  ac- 
cess to  the  invisible  Church  and  the  presence  of  the  Lord 
of  glory. 

Richard  Baxter  well  said : 

"  This  cheating  noise  and  name  of  Unity  hath  been  the  great 
divider  of  the  Christian  world.  And  under  pretence  of  suppress- 
ing heresie  and  schism,  and  bringing  a  blessed  peace  and  har- 
monic amongst  all  Christians,  the  churches  have  been  set  all 
together  by  the  ears,  condemning  and  unchurching  one  another, 
and  millions  have  been  murthered  in  the  flames,  inquisition,  and 
other  kinds  of  death,  and  those  are  martyrs  with  the  one  part, 
who  are  burnt  as  hereticks  by  the  other ;  and  more  millions  have 
been  murdered  by  wars.  And  hatred  and  confusion  is  become 
the  mark  and  temperament  of  those  who  have  most  loudly  cried 
up  Unity  and  Concord,  Order  and  Peace,"  * 

Protestant  divines  have  always  recognized  that  the 
Church  of  Rome  was  a  true  Church,  one  of  the  many 
branches  of  Christendom.  They  have  ever  recognized 
the  validity  of  her  baptism  and  her  ordination.  They 
unite  with  her  in  veneration  of  the  noble  army  of  mar- 


*  "  Cure  of  Church  Divisions,"  1670,  p.  276. 


228  BARRIERS. 

tyrs — pious  monks,  bishops,  archbishops,  and  popes — 
that  have  adorned  the  history  of  the  Western  Church. 
These  are  our  heritage  as  well  as  theirs.  The  Reforma- 
tion broke  the  Western  Church  into  several  national 
Churches.  The  legitimate  heirs  of  the  ancient  and  me- 
diaeval Church  are  the  national  Churches  of  England, 
Scotland,  Holland,  Switzerland,  Norway,  Sweden,  Den- 
mark, and  Germany,  no  less  than  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  which  remained  unreformed  in  the  southern 
countries  of  Europe. 

The  papacy  as  a  hierarchical  despotism  claiming  in- 
fallibility and  usurping  the  throne  of  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
Antichrist  of  the  Reformers.  Whether  it  be  the  Anti- 
christ of  the  Scriptures  or  not,  it  is  the  closest  historical 
approximation  to  the  Antichrist  of  prophecy  that  has 
yet  appeared  in  the  world.  The  papacy  is  antichristian, 
the  great  curse  of  the  Christian  Church.  The  papal 
system  was  one  of  the  reasons  for  the  separation  of 
Greek  and  Roman  Christianity  into  two  antagonistic 
ecclesiastical  organizations.  It  was  the  great  barrier  to 
the  reformation  of  the  Latin  Church,  and,  when  the 
Protestant  Reformation  came,  the  authority  of  the  pope 
was  given  to  the  side  of  error  and  sin,  and  the  reform- 
ers were  persecuted  unto  death.  As  the  supremacy  of 
the  pope  severed  Greek  from  Roman  Christianity,  so  it 
made  a  rupture  between  the  Christianity  of  the  North 
of  Europe  and  the  Christianity  of  the  South  of  Europe. 
In  more  recent  times  the  same  baneful  influence  forced 
the  separation  of  the  Jansenists  and  the  Old  Catholics. 
Thus  this  theory  historically  has  proved  to  be  the  moth- 
er of  discord  in  Christendom.  It  is  the  chief  barrier  to 
Christian  union. 

"  Neither  indeed  is  there  any  hope,  that  ever  we  shall  see  a 
generall  peace,  for  matters  of  religion,  settled  in  the  Christian 


WHITHER?  229 

world,  as  long  as  this  supercilious  Master  shall  bee  suffered  to 
keepe  this  rule  in  God's  house :  however  much  soever  hee  bee 
magnified  by  his  owne  disciples,  and  made  the  onely  foundation 
upon  which  the  unitie  of  the  Catholick  dependeth."* 

Until  this  barrier  has  been  broken  down  the  union  of 
Christendom  is  impossible.  The  destruction  of  popery 
is  indispensable  to  the  unity  of  the  Church. 

But  the  papacy  is  not  the  only  form  of  ecclesiastical 
authority  that  has  produced  discord.  On  the  continent 
of  Europe,  Protestant  princes  were  set  up  as  little  popes 
to  lord  it  over  Christ's  Church ;  and  in  England,  kings 
and  queens  usurped  ecclesiastical  supremacy ;  and  the 
ills  of  the  seventeenth  century,  in  the  Thirty  Years'  War 
on  the  continent,  and  the  civil  wars  of  Great  Britain, 
were  largely  owing  to  this  cause. 

The  result  of  the  conflict  in  Great  Britain  was  the  es- 
tablishment of  three  rival  theories  of  Church  govern- 
ment, each  claiming  divine  right — the  Episcopal  gov- 
ernment in  England  and  Ireland,  the  Presbyterian 
government  in  Scotland,  and  the  Congregational  gov- 
ernment which  was  virtually  established  in  New  Eng- 
land. Each  of  these  governments  was  alike  intolerant 
and  exclusive.  Each  of  them  alike  rent  the  robe  of 
Christ's  Church.  This  should  not  surprise  us,  for  any 
ecclesiastical  government  that  usurps  divine  authority, 
is  tyrannical  and  schismatic  from  the  very  nature  of  the 
case.  It  is  in  itself  an  usurpation  of  the  crown  rights  of 
Jesus  Christ. 

A  scientific  study  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  and  the 
first  Christian  century  has  shown  that  none  of  these 
forms  of  government  is  of  divine  right ;  they  all  alike 
are  of  human  origin,  and  have  arisen  from  historic  cir- 


*  Ussher's  "  Brief  Declaration,"  p.  14. 


230  BARRIERS. 

cumstances  and  sincere  efforts  to  adapt  the  teachings 
of  Scripture  to  these  circumstances.  It  is  noteworthy 
that  there  is  agreement  with  reference  to  a  single  officer 
—the  pastor  of  the  congregation.  All  Christian  church- 
es have  pastors,  and  they  cannot  do  their  work  without 
them.  Here  is  the  basis  for  union.  It  is  agreed  that 
he  should  be  a  man  called  of  God  to  his  work,  and  en- 
dowed with  the  gifts  and  graces  that  are  needed  for  the 
exercise  of  his  ministry.  It  is  also  agreed  that  he  should 
be  ordained  either  by  the  imposition  of  hands  or  some 
suitable  ceremony.  This  presbyter-bishop  of  the  New 
Testament  is  found  in  all  ages  of  the  Church  and  in  all 
lands.  Herein  is  the  true  historical  succession  of  the 
ministry,  in  the  unbroken  chain  of  these  ordained  pres- 
byters. Herein  is  the  world-wide  government  which  is 
carried  on  through  them.  This  is  the  one  form  of 
Church  government  that  bears  the  marks  of  catholicity, 
that  is  semper  ubique  et  ab  omnibus. 

It  matters  little  comparatively  how  the  royal  govern- 
ment of  Jesus  Christ  and  His  power  of  the  keys  is  com- 
municated to  them,  whether  directly  from  the  divine 
Master  or  mediately  through  the  ordination  of  a  pres- 
bytery or  of  a  bishop,  an  archbishop  or  a  pope,  so  long 
as  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  one  king  and  head  of  the 
Church,  actually  carries  on  His  government  through 
them.  We  apprehend  that  the  long-suffering  Saviour 
will  not  deprive  His  people  of  the  benefits  of  His  reign, 
even  if  their  leaders  should  make  some  mistakes  in  the 
form  of  government.  This  point  of  agreement  in  Church 
government  should  be  insisted  upon  by  the  churches, 
whatever  they  may  think  of  the  importance  of  the  other 
officers  in  the  Church.  If  all  the  churches  of  Christen- 
dom would  recognize  the  validity  of  the  ordination  of 
the  ministry  of  the  other  churches,  one  of  the  chief  bar- 


WHITHER?  231 

riers  to  the  concord  of  Christendom  would  be  removed. 
They  might  deem  this  ordination  as  irregular  and  even 
disorderly,  as  not  conformed  to  their  own  doctrine  of 
church  government ;  they  might  contend  vigorously  for 
the  superior  excellence  of  their  own  orders ;  if  they 
would  concede  this  one  point  to  their  fellow-Christians 
and  fellow-ministers,  the  validity  of  whose  ministry  is 
attested  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  its  fruitfulness  in  good 
works. 

Apart  from  this  single  church  officer  there  is  no  agree- 
ment whatever.  The  deacon  in  the  prelatical  churches 
is  a  young  man  in  preparation  for  the  priesthood  in  a 
lower  order  of  ministry.  In  the  Reformed  churches  he 
is  a  layman  having  charge  of  the  poor  and  of  financial 
affairs.  Among  the  Congregational  churches  he  is  a 
representative  of  the  people  and  an  adviser  of  the  pas- 
tor. The  deacons  of  the  New  Testament  have  little 
resemblance  with  any  of  these  modern  deacons. 

The  Reformed  churches  have  elders  who  are  associ- 
ated with  the  pastor  in  a  congregational  presbytery 
which  has  the  government  of  the  congregation.  There 
are  elders  in  the  New  Testament  who  constitute  a  pres- 
bytery, but  the  majority  of  the  elders  of  the  Reformed 
churches  at  the  present  time  have  little  resemblance  to 
them.  There  was  considerable  difference  of  opinion  in 
the  Westminster  Assembly  with  regard  to  this  office. 
Stephen  Marshall  said  in  the  course  of  the  debate :  "  If 
I  conceived  every  one  should  be  called  to  subscribe  to 
it  or  exercise  no  ministry,  I  should  be  loath  to  give  my 
vote."  * 

The  Protestant  churches  of  America  have  been  obliged 
to  introduce  the  lay  element  into  their  congregational 


*  MS.  Minutes  Westminster  Assembly,  ii.,  p.  248. 


232  BARRIERS. 

government  and  to  give  it  representation  in  the  higher 
ecclesiastical  courts ;  and  these  laymen  with  their  differ- 
ent names  have  very  similar  work  to  that  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian elders.  The  name  is  less  important  than  the  thing. 
The  Presbyterian  system  seems  to  us  to  be  the  nearest 
to  the  New  Testament  representation  and  the  most 
efficient  and  best  organized  method  of  lay  representa- 
tion. It  might  be  best  to  abandon  the  name  ruling 
elder,  which  is  of  questionable  origin  and  propriety,  and 
use  some  other  name  that  is  not  associated  with  histor- 
ical contests.*  We  should  be  willing  to  do  this  if  it 
would  advance  the  cause  of  Christian  union.  It  seems 
to  us  there  would  be  little  difficulty  in  adjusting  the 
mode  of  government  of  the  congregations  so  as  to  sat- 
isfy all  reasonable  demands. 

The  chief  difficulties  arise  when  we  ascend  to  the 
Presbyteries,  Conventions,  Conferences,  Associations, 
and  the  other  general  bodies,  and  ask  the  question  as  to 
their  authority.  All  agree  that  their  authority  should 
be  moral  and  spiritual,  but  it  is  in  dispute  whether  it 
should  be  legal  and  imperative  as  of  higher  jurisdiction. 
It  has  been  found  necessary  in  American  civil  govern- 
ment to  protect  the  liberties  of  the  people  in  communi- 
ties and  towns,  and  also  in  the  States,  and  to  limit  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  superior  bodies.  This  matter  has 
been  too  much  neglected  in  ecclesiastical  government. 
This  is  the  way  to  solve  not  a  few  of  our  ecclesiastical 
controversies.  Authority  should  decrease  in  extension 
and  increase  in  intension  as  we  ascend.  The  congrega- 
tion with  its  pastor  have  certain  rights  and  liberties 
which  should  be  regarded  as  sacred,  upon  which  the 
higher  ecclesiastical  bodies  ought  not  to  encroach.  The 
authority  of  the  higher  bodies  should  be  limited,  and 

*  See  p.  36. 


WHITHER  ?  233 

absolute  authority  denied.  A  constitution  is  a  great 
blessing  to  any  church,  for  it  defines  the  obligations  of 
the  minister  and  the  people,  and  guarantees  them  liberty 
in  all  else.  So  the  presbytery  should  have  certain  rights 
of  control  over  its  own  churches  into  which  the  synod 
should  not  intrude.  The  synod's  power  should  suffer 
still  greater  limitation.  The  power  of  the  General  As- 
sembly ought  to  be  confined  to  very  few  matters,  and 
those  of  general  interest,  such  as  the  Constitution  of 
the  Church  and  its  general  work. 

The  Congregational  churches,  with  whom  the  Bap- 
tists agree,  stand  over  against  the  Presbyterian  and 
Episcopal  forms  of  government  as  represented  by  the 
several  Presbyterian,  Reformed,  Lutheran,  and  Meth- 
odist bodies,  that  hold  to  the  Presbyterian  form  of  gov- 
ernment, and  the  Episcopal  Church,  which  maintains  the 
Episcopal  form  of  government.  As  regards  agreement 
between  the  three  forms,  every  effort  was  put  forth  for 
union  and  concord  in  the  seventeenth  century.  The  long 
debates  in  the  Westminster  Assembly  show  this.  The 
words  of  the  leading  divines  on  both  sides  bear  witness  to  it. 

Thomas  Hill,  the  Presbyterian,  says  on  the  one  side: 

"  There  is  no  such  difference,  for  aught  I  know,  between  the 
sober  Independent  and  moderate  Presbyterian,  but  if  things  were 
wisely  managed,  both  might  be  reconciled  ;  and  by  the  happy 
union  of  them  both  together,  the  Church  of  England  might  be 
a  glorious  church,  and  that  without  persecuting,  banishing,  or  any 
such  thing,  which  some  mouths  are  too  full  of.  I  confess  it  is 
most  desirable  that  confusion  (that  many  people  fear  by  Inde- 
pendency) might  be  prevented  ;  and  it  is  likewise  desirable  that 
the  severity  that  some  others  fear,  by  the  rigour  of  Presbytery 
might  be  hindred  ;  therefore  let  us  labor  for  a  prudent  Love,  and 
study  to  advance  an  happy  accomodation."  * 

*  "  An  olive  branch  of  peace  and  accomodation.  Lord  Mayor's  Sermon, 
1645,"  printed  1648,  p.  38. 


234  BARRIERS. 

So  on  the  other  side,  Jeremiah  Burroughs,  the  Congre- 
gationalist,  says : 

"  Why  should  we  not  think  it  possible  for  us  to  go  along  close 
together  in  love  and  peace,  though  in  some  things  our  judgements 
and  practices  be  apparently  different  one  from  another?  I  will 
give  you  who  are  scholars  a  sentence  to  write  upon  your  study 
doores,  as  needf ull  an  one  in  these  times  as  any ;  it  is  this  : 
opinionum  varietas,  et  opiniantium  unitas  non  sunt  aadarara — Va- 
riety of  opinions,  and  unity  of  those  that  hold  them,  may  stand 
together.  There  hath  been  much  ado  to  get  us  to  agree ;  we 
laboured  to  get  our  opinions  into  one,  but  they  will  not  come 
together.  It  may  be  in  our  endeavours  for  agreement  we  have 
begun  at  the  wrong  end.  Let  us  try  what  we  can  do  at  the  other 
end ;  it  may  be  we  shall  have  better  success  there.  Let  us  la- 
bour to  joyne  our  hearts  to  engage  our  affections  one  to  another : 
if  we  cannot  be  of  one  mind  that  we  may  agree,  let  us  agree  that 
we  may  be  of  one  mind."  * 

And  so  the  Presbyterian  ministers  of  the  Provincial 
Assembly  of  London  say : 

"  A  fifth  sort  are  our  reverend  brethren  of  New  and  Old  Eng- 
land of  the  Congregational  way,  who  hold  our  churches  to  be 
true  churches,  and  our  ministers  true  ministers,  though  they 
differ  from  us  in  some  lesser  things.  We  have  been  necessitated 
to  fall  upon  some  things,  wherein  they  and  we  disagree,  and  have 
represented  the  reasons  of  our  dissent.  But  yet  we  here  profess 
that  this  disagreement  shall  not  hinder  us  from  any  Christian 
accord  with  them  in  affection.  That  we  can  willingly  write  upon 
our  study  doors  that  motto  which  Mr.  Jer  Burroughes  (who  a 
little  before  his  death  did  ambitiously  endeavour  after  union 
amongst  brethren,  as  some  of  us  can  testifie)  persuades  all  schol- 
ars unto,  opinionum  varietas,  et  opiniantium  unitas  non  sunt 
aaiarara.  And  that  we  shall  be  willing  to  entertain  any  sincere 
motion  (as  we  have  also  formerly  declared  in  our  printed  vindi- 
cation) that  shall  farther  a  happy  accommodation  between  us. 

"  The  last  sort  are  the  moderate,  godly  episcopal  men,  that 
hold  ordination  by  Presbyters  to  be  lawful  and  valid ;  that  a 


*  "  Irenicuin  to  the  Lovers  of  Truth  and  Peace,"  London,  1646,  p.  255. 


WHITHER  ?  235 

Bishop  and  a  Presbyter  are  one  and  the  same  order  of  ministry, 
that  are  orthodox  in  doctrinal  truths  and  yet  hold  that  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  Church  by  a  perpetual  Moderatour  is  most  agree- 
able to  Scripture  pattern.  Though  herein  we  differ  from  them, 
yet  we  are  farre  from  thinking  that  this  difference  should  hinder 
a  happy  union  between  them  and  us.  Nay,  we  crave  leave  to 
profess  to  the  world  that  it  will  never  (as  we  humbly  conceive) 
be  well  with  England  till  there  be  an  union  endeavoured  and 
effected  between  all  those  that  are  orthodox  in  doctrine  though 
differing  among  themselves  in  some  circumstances  about  Church 
government."  * 

Richard  Baxter  led  in  a  great  movement  for  union  in 
the  organization  of  the  Worcester  Association,  in  1653. 
Similar  organizations  were  made  in  other  counties,  such 
as  Westmoreland,  Cumberland,  Dorsetshire,  Wiltshire, 
Hampshire,  and  Essex.  As  Baxter  says  : 

"  The  main  body  of  our  Association  were  men  that  thought 
the  Episcopal,  Presbyterians,  and  Independents  had  each  of 
them  some  good  in  which  they  excelled  the  other  two  parties, 
and  each  of  them  some  mistakes ;  and  that  to  select  out  of  all 
three  the  best  part,  and  leave  the  worst,  was  the  most  desirable 
(and  ancient)  form  of  government.''! 

So  again  in  1661-62,  every  effort  was  put  forth  for 
union  between  the  Presbyterian  and  Episcopal  parties. 
The  Presbyterians  were  willing  to  accept  the  plan  of 
Archbishop  Ussherto  reduce  the  Episcopate  to  the  form 
of  synodical  government.  They  were  willing  to  use 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  with  the  exception  of  a 
very  few  passages  and  with  the  omission  of  a  very  few 
ceremonies.  As  Baxter  said  : 

"  Oh,  how  little  would  it  have  cost  your  churchmen  in  1660 
and  1 66 1  to  have  prevented  the  calamitous  and  dangerous  di- 
visions of  this  land,  and  our  common  dangers  thereby,  and  the 


*  "Jus  Divinum,"  Preface. 

t  "  Church  Concord,"  Preface.     London,  1691. 


236  BARRIERS. 

hurt  that  many  hundred  thousand  souls  have  received  by  it ! 
And  how  little  would  it  cost  them  yet  to  prevent  the  continuance 
of  it!"* 

The  union  was  prevented  in  the  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries  partly  by  political  considerations, 
but  chiefly  by  the  theory  that  there  could  be  no  unity 
except  by  a  submission  to  one  strict  form  of  church  gov- 
ernment. And  so  the  three  forms  that  were  evolved 
from  the  religious  conflicts  of  Great  Britain  have  main- 
tained themselves,  strengthened  their  position,  and  have 
become  unconquerable.  What  reasonable  man  can  for  a 
moment  suppose  that  Presbyterianism  will  lose  its  hold 
upon  Scotland  and  the  North  of  Ireland,  and  give  way 
to  Episcopacy  or  Congregationalism,  or  that  it  will 
make  any  serious  encroachments  upon  England  or  New 
England  ?  There  is  no  probability  that  the  Church  of 
England  will  ever  succeed  in  imposing  prelatical  Epis- 
copacy upon  all  the  people  of  England,  or  will  gain  the 
supremacy  over  the  Congregationalism  of  New  England. 
Congregationalism  will  never  gain  much  ground  from 
Presbyterianism  in  the  Middle  and  Southern  States  of 
America.  In  the  Western  States  the  three  forms  are 
upon  more  equal  terms.  Now  that  conquest  is  out 
of  the  question,  and  the  reunion  of  Christendom  is  im- 
practicable by  a  strict  adherence  to  any  of  these  forms, 
it  is  manifest  that  there  can  be  no  union  without  mutual 
recognition,  concession,  and  assimilation.  Each  form 
has  certain  advantages  in  it  and  also  some  disadvantages. 
That  would  be  the  most  excellent  form  of  government 
which  would  combine  the  good  features  and  avoid  the 
defects  of  all. 

There  has  been  assimilation  in  recent  times,  especially 


*  "  Penitent  Confession,"  1691,  Preface. 


WHITHER?  237 

in  America.  The  Congregational  churches  give  more 
authority  to  their  Associations  than  is  known  in  Eng- 
land. The  Presbyterian  and  Episcopal  Churches  give 
less  authority  to  their  supreme  courts  than  is  common 
in  Great  Britain.  But  the  difference  is  still  so  great 
that  consolidation  is  out  of  the  question  at  present. 
But  there  is  a  possibility  of  union  by  Federation.  It 
seems  to  me  that  there  are  no  sufficient  reasons  why  the 
Episcopal  General  Convention,  the  Congregational  Gen- 
eral Council,  the  Baptist  General  Council,  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  General  Conference,  the  Presbyterian  General 
Assemblies,  and  the  Reformed  General  Synods  should 
not  all  alike  send  representatives  to  a  General  Council 
of  the  Church  of  Christ  of  America,  such  a  Council 
having  only  moral  and  spiritual  authority.  It  seems  to 
me  that  there  are  possibilities  of  union  and  co-operation 
in  the  general  work  of  the  Christian  Church  in  America 
and  in  heathen  lands  that  are  incalculable  in  the  good 
that  might  be  produced.  There  are  grand  possibilities 
in  the  removal  of  barriers,  stumbling-blocks,  causes  of 
friction  and  strife,  and  in  the  furtherance  of  peace,  con- 
cord, and  Christian  love. 

But  what  shall  we  do  with  the  historical  episcopate  ? 
We  answer  that  the  historical  episcopate  is  an  ambigu- 
ous term.  There  are  many  kinds  of  episcopates  in 
Christian  history.  Some  bishops  claim  the  authority  to 
rule  the  Church  by  divine  right,  some  bishops  derive 
their  authority  from  archbishops,  and  some  bishops  re- 
ceive their  authority  from  the  Pope.  There  are  also 
bishops  who  are  superintendents  chosen  by  presbyters, 
and  who  have  no  other  authority  than  that  imparted  to 
them  by  those  who  have  chosen  them.  There  are  also 
presbyterial  bishops  who  exercise  all  the  rights  and 
fulfil  all  the  duties  of  the  Christian  ministry.  The  great 


238  BARRIERS. 

difference  of  opinion  that  prevails  in  the  Church  of 
Christ  on  the  subject  of  the  historical  episcopate  is  in 
the  matter  of  order  and  real  seat  of  authority.  Chris- 
tendom might  unite  with  an  ascending  series  of  super- 
intending bishops  that  would  culminate  in  a  universal 
bishop,  provided  the  pyramid  would  be  willing  to  rest 
firmly  on  its  base,  the  solid  order  of  the  presbyter-bish- 
ops of  the  New  Testament  and  of  all  history  and  all 
churches.  But  the  pyramid  will  never  stand  on  its  apex 
nor  hang  suspended  in  the  air  supported  by  any  of  its 
upper  stages. 

We  confess  to  a  warm  sympathy  with  those  members 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  who  desire  to  re- 
move the  terms  Protestant  Episcopal  from  the  name  of 
their  Church,  on  the  ground  that  these  terms  are  schis- 
matical.  All  such  terms  are  from  the  very  nature  of  the 
case  schismatical.  They  represent  that  the  churches 
that  bear  them  are  parties  or  branches  of  the  Church, 
and  not  the  true  and  pure  Church  of  Christ. 

But  the  names  really  correspond  with  the  facts  ;  they 
express  the  truth.  The  evil  of  schism  is  in  the  churches. 
It  will  not  cure  the  evil  to  abolish  the  names.  When 
the  evil  of  schism  has  been  cured,  then  the  schism  and 
the  names  will  disappear  likewise.  In  the  meanwhile 
it  is  far  better  that  the  names  should  remain  and  express 
the  true  state  of  the  case  to  all  earnest  souls.  They 
may  perhaps  sting  the  conscience  and  goad  the  will  to 
earnest  action  in  behalf  of  peace  and  unity. 

"  Why,  sirs,  have  not  Independents,  Presbyterians,  Episcopal!, 
etc.,  one  God,  one  Christ,  one  Spirit,  one  Creed,  one  Scripture, 
one  hope  of  everlasting  life  ?  Are  our  disagreements  so  great 
that  we  may  not  live  together  in  love,  and  close  in  fraternal 
union  and  amity  ?  Are  we  not  of  one  Religion  ?  Do  we  differ 
in  fundamentals  or  substantials  ?  Will  not  conscience  worry  us? 


WHITHER  t  239 

Will  not  posterity  curse  us,  if  by  our  divisions  we  betray  the  gos- 
pel into  the  hands  of  the  enemies  ?  And  if  by  our  mutuall  envy- 
ings  and  jealousies  and  perverse  zeal  for  our  severall  conceits,  we 
should  keep  open  the  breach  for  all  heresies  and  wickednesse  to 
enter,  and  make  a  prey  of  our  poor  people's  souls  :  Brethren,  you 
see  other  bonds  are  loosed,  Satan  will  make  his  advantage  of 
these  daies  of  licentiousnesse  ;  let  us  straiten  the  bond  of  Chris- 
tian unity  and  love,  and  help  each  other  against  the  powers  of 
hell,  and  joyn  our  forces  against  our  common  enemy."  * 

SUBSCRIPTION   TO   ELABORATE   CREEDS. 

Another  great  barrier  to  the  reunion  of  Christendom 
is  subscription  to  elaborate  Creeds.  This  is  the  great  sin 
of  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches.  Every  one  of 
these  creeds  has  separated  subscribers  from  non-sub- 
scribers and  occasioned  the  organization  of  dissenting 
churches.  Lutherans,  Calvinists,  and  Arminians,  and 
sections  of  the  same,  have  been  separated  into  different 
ecclesiastical  organizations.  These  doctrinal  divisions 
have  done  more  than  anything  else  to  weaken  Protest- 
antism and  stay  its  progress  in  Europe.  These  contro- 
versies that  centre  about  the  creeds  of  the  seventeenth 
century  still  continue,  but  they  are  not  so  violent  as  they 
used  to  be.  Each  of  the  varieties  of  Protestantism  has 
won  its  right  to  exist  and  to  be  recognized  in  the  com- 
mon family.  The  differences  cannot  be  solved  by  con- 
quest, but  only  by  some  higher  knowledge  and  better 
adjustment  of  the  problems  through  an  advance  in  the- 
ological conception  and  definition.  The  question  now 
forces  itself  upon  earnest  men  whether  these  differences 
justify  ecclesiastical  separation,  and  whether  they  may 
not  be  left  to  battle  their  own  way  to  success  or  defeat 

*  "  Christian  Concord,  or  the  Agreement  of  the  Associated  Pastors  and 
Churches  of  Worcestershire,  with  Richard  Baxter's  Explication  and  Defence  of 
it,  and  his  Exhortation  to  Unity,"  p.  96.  London,  1653. 


240  BARRIERS. 

without  the  help  of  ecclesiastical  fences  and  traditional 
prejudices. 

"  It  is  not  the  part  of  wise  Divines,  so  to  swell  and  increase 
the  number  of  Fundamentall  points,  that  all  Christians,  as  well 
learned,  as  unlearned,  should  be  wholly  uncertaine,  and  ignorant, 
what,  and  of  what  kind  those  be  which  are  adjudged  properly  to 
belong  to  the  Foundation  of  Religion,  &  Catholike  Faith.  But  if 
we  should  let  the  matter  run  on  so  long,  till  all  the  controverted 
Problemes  betwixt  Protestants  are  counted  Fundamentall,  long 
since  they  have  grown  to  too  numerous,  hereafter  they  may  grow 
to  an  almost  numberlesse  multitude.  For  this  solemne  course 
and  practice  is  observed  of  many,  that  what  they  themselves 
have  added  to  any  Fundamentall  axioms  as  over  weight,  and 
what  they  beleeve  to  be  a  consequence  of  the  same,  this  they 
presently  require  of  all,  to  be  counted  in  the  number  of  Funda- 
mentalls.  If  we  grant  to  any  particular  Churches,  or  to  their 
Doctors,  this  power  of  creating  and  multiplying  Fundamentalls  ; 
all  hope  is  past  of  the  certainty  of  the  Catholike  Faith,  all  hope 
is  gone  of  a  Brotherly  communion  of  the  Catholike  Church."* 

The  differences  between  the  Lutherans,  Calvinists,  and 
Arminians  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  essentials  of 
Protestantism.  All  alike  hold  that  the  Word  of  God  is 
the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ;  that  men 
are  justified  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  and  not  by  works  of 
righteousness  or  ceremonies ;  that  good  works  are  the 
fruit  of  justifying  faith  and  give  assurance  of  acceptance 
with  God  ;  and  above  all,  that  salvation  is  of  the  divine 
grace  through  Jesus  Christ,  the  only  mediator  and  re- 
deemer. These  are  the  great  verities  of  Protestantism, 
and  they  are  vastly  more  important  than  those  peculiar 
doctrines  that  distinguish  the  Lutheran,  Calvinistic,  and 
Arminian  systems.  After  many  efforts,  renewed  from 
time  to  time  from  the  Reformation  until  the  present 
century,  the  Reformed  and  Lutheran  Churches  have 

*  Bishop  Davenant,  "An  Exhortation  on  the  restoring  of  Brotherly  Commun- 
ion betwixt  the  "Protestant  Churches,"  p.  121.  London,  1641. 


WHITHER  ?  241 

combined  in  the  Evangelical  Church  of  Prussia  and 
other  German  States.  This  reunion  has  proved  a  great 
success,  and  has  been  fruitful  for  good.  There  is  no  suf- 
ficient reason  why  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  Churches 
should  not  unite  in  America.  This  will  be  accom- 
plished when  theologians  are  willing  to  recognize  that 
the  few  points  of  difference  between  them  are  debat- 
able and  tolerable,  rising  like  mountain  peaks  above 
the  great  ranges  of  doctrine  in  which  there  is  entire 
concord. 

The  Reformed  Church  was  broken  up  into  two  great 
parties  calling  themselves  Calvinists  and  Arminians. 
Holland  was  the  centre  of  this  unhappy  conflict,  but  it 
extended  over  entire  Europe  and  distracted  all  the  na- 
tional Churches  of  the  Reformed  faith.  The  Articles  of 
the  Synod  of  Dort  were  adopted  to  exclude  Arminians 
from  orthodoxy,  but  they  have  never  given  satisfaction 
to  the  intermediate  party,  which  has  now  become  the 
most  numerous  of  all.  Arminianism  was  really  a  reac- 
tion from  the  supralapsarian  Calvinism.  It  would  have 
been  simple  justice  to  cut  them  both  off  at  the  same 
time.  But  it  is  one  of  the  singularities  of  religious  his- 
tory, that  narrow  views  of  sacred  things  and  extreme 
rigidity  of  doctrine  succeed  in  maintaining  their  errors 
within  the  orthodox  fold,  while  errors  of  a  more  gener- 
ous type  are  often  cast  out.  Calvinism  cannot  be  iden- 
tified with  the  Five  Points  of  the  Synod  of  Dort.  The 
conflict  with  Arminianism  developed  a  conflict  between 
the  scholastic  type  of  Calvinism  and  the  milder  Calvin- 
ism of  the  school  of  Saumur  of  France,  the  Federalists 
of  Holland,  and  the  evangelical  Puritanism  of  Calamy, 
Baxter,  and  their  associates  in  Great  Britain.  These 
strifes  were  renewed  in  America  in  the  eighteenth  cent- 
ury, and  resulted  in  the  separation  of  the  so-called  old 


BARRIERS. 

school  and  new  school.  Really  and  historically  the  one 
was  as  old  as  the  other. 

The  two  parties  united  in  happy  union  in  our  great 
American  Presbyterian  Church  and  made  it  broader, 
more  catholic,  and  fruitful.  But  this  reunion  ought  to 
be  the  beginning  and  not  the  end  of  the  reunion  of 
Presbyterian  churches.  There  are  no  such  doctrinal  dif- 
ferences in  the  other  branches  of  Presbyterianism  as  to 
justify  separation.  The  Southern  Presbyterian  Church 
as  a  body  seems  to  represent  the  scholastic  type  of  Cal- 
vinism, the  Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church  the  semi- 
Arminianism  of  the  milder  type  of  Calvinism.  There  is 
a  natural  tendency  of  the  sterner  Calvinists  to  affiliate 
with  the  former  and  of  the  milder  Calvinists  to  prefer 
the  latter.  Any  scheme  of  Reunion  that  would  prove 
successful  and  give  satisfaction  to  all  parties  should  em- 
brace both  these  Churches. 

The  largest  ecclesiastical  body  in  the  United  States 
is  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  which  is  distinguished 
by  its  Arminian  type  of  doctrine.  It  is  fortunate  that 
the  Presbyterian  churches  do  not  bear  the  name  of  Cal- 
vin, and  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  does  not 
bear  the  name  of  Arminius.  Indeed,  the  types  of  doc- 
trine in  these  churches  do  not  agree  altogether  with 
the  names  of  these  two  great  Protestant  divines.  The 
doctrinal  system  of  the  Westminster  symbols  is  not  the 
scholastic  type  of  Calvinism  of  the  Swiss  or  Dutch  di- 
vines. It  is  not  the  type  of  the  French  school  of  Sau- 
mur  or  of  the  Federalists  of  Holland.  It  is  the  distinct 
Puritan  type  of  Calvinism.  And  so  the  doctrinal  system 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  presented  in  its 
revised  edition  of  the  XXXIX  Articles,  and  the  Teach- 
ings of  John  Wesley,  is  not  the  Arminianism  of  Holland, 
but  is  semi-Arminianism  of  the  English  type.  There  is 


WHITHER  ?  243 

more  of  English  Puritanism  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  its  practical  religious  life  than  there  is  of  Ar- 
minianism  in  its  creed.  The  English  Puritanism  that  is 
common  to  these  two  great  branches  of  the  Church  of 
Christ  is  much  more  important  than  the  doctrinal-  vari- 
ations. In  my  judgment  these  differences  do  not  justify 
separation.  Dr.  Prentiss  says : 

"  The  evangelical  Arminianism  of  Methodism  has  very  close 
and  vital  affinities  to  the  Puritan  evangelical  type  of  Calvinism  ; 
and  it  is  for  the  interest  of  the  Christian  cause  to  emphasize  this 
fact.  So,  at  least,  thought  one  of  the  ablest  and  most  sagacious 
Calvinistic  theologians  our  country  has  produced.  I  refer  to  the 
late  Henry  Boynton  Smith.  In  a  letter  written  in  January,  1871, 
and  addressed  to  a  distinguished  Methodist  clergyman,  he  says  : 

"  '  What  is  it  that  keeps  Methodists  and  Presbyterians  apart  ? 
Is  it  anything  essential — to  the  church  or  even  to  its  se/£//-being  ? 
For  one,  I  do  not  think  that  it  is.  Your  so-called  "  Arminianism  " 
being  of  grace,  and  not  of  nature,  is  in  harmony  with  our  sym- 
bols. It  is  a  wide  outlook  which  looks  to  an  ecclesiastical  union 
of  Methodists  and  Presbyterians,  but  I  am  convinced  that  it  is 
vital  for  both,  and  for  Protestantism  and  for  Christianity  vs.  Ro- 
manism in  this  country  ;  and  that  it  is  desirable  per  se. 

" '  1  am  also  persuaded  that  our  differences  are  merely  intel- 
lectual (metaphysical),  and  not  moral  or  spiritual ;  in  short,  for- 
mal and  not  material.  As  to  polity,  too,  so  far  as  the  Scriptures 
go,  there  is  no  essential  difference  between  us.  Your  "  bishops  " 
I  do  not  object  to,  but  rather  like,  and  our  "  elders  "  I  think  you 
would  like,  on  due  acquaintance.  As  to  Christian  work,  where 
you  are  strong  we  are  weak  ;  but  your  local  preachers  and  class- 
leaders,  are  they  really  anything  more  than  our  "  elders  " — lay 
elders — under  another  name  ? '  "  * 

With  this  opinion  I  entirely  concur.  I  do  not  under- 
rate the  importance  of  the  points  of  difference.  I  would 
not  be  willing  to  yield  any  position  of  historic  Calvinism 
or  to  depart  from  the  Puritan  type  of  doctrine.  But  I 


*  Presbyterian  Review,  July,  1883,  p.  563. 


BARRIERS. 

see  no  reason  why  Calvinism  could  not  maintain  itself 
in  the  same  ecclesiastical  organization  with  Arminian- 
ism.  It  vindicates  its  right  to  live  and  grow  in  the  two 
great  Episcopal  Churches  and  in  Congregational  churches. 
I  have  such  confidence  in  the  principles  of  Calvinism 
that  I  believe  they  would  have  a  better  chance  of  over- 
coming Arminianism  in  a  free  and  chivalrous  contest  in 
the  same  ecclesiastical  organization,  than  they  now  have, 
when  shut  off  by  themselves  and  carefully  excluded  from 
the  largest  body  of  Christians  in  America.  We  doubt 
whether  it  is  practicable  or  advisable  at  the  present 
time  to  consolidate  the  Presbyterian  and  the  Methodist 
families,  but  there  might  be  a  Federation  and  an  Alli- 
ance for  union  and  co-operation  in  the  general  work  of 
the  Church  of  Christ. 

The  doctrinal  differences  are  not  so  great  as  some 
imagine.  No  one  will  suspect  BisTiop  Davenant  of  any 
unfaithfulness  to  Calvinistic  principles.  He  represented 
the  Church  of  England  at  the  Synod  of  Dort  and  con- 
curred in  its  decisions  ;  and  yet  he  treats  of  the  matters 
in  dispute  in  the  following  generous  way  : 

"  It  appeared  lately  in  the  conference  of  Lipsigh  that  there  is 
an  agreement  in  all  these  Points.  If  there  be  any  other  things 
remaining  they  are  rather  controversies  about  words  than  about 
matter ;  rather  discords  about  subtile  speculations  than  funda- 
mentall  articles.  Such  are  those  which  are  disputed  betwixt 
Schoolmen,  of  the  Signification  of  the  very  words,  namely,  Pre- 
destination and  Reprobation  ;  of  the  Imaginary  order  of  Priority, 
and  Posteriority  betwixt  the  Eternal  Acts  of  Predestinating  and 
Fore-knowing,  of  the  unsearchable  manner  of  Divine  working 
about  all  humane  actions,  whether  good  or  bad,  of  the  necessitie, 
or  contingency  of  all  things,  which  from  Eternity  were  predesti- 
nated, or  fore-knowne  of  God.  In  such  perplexed  controversies 
it  cannot  bee,  but  contradictions  must  arise  often-times  betwixt 
Disputants  ;  yet  brotherly  Concord  may  be  made  up  and  main- 
tained betwixt  the  churches  themselves,  as  anciently  it  was  pre- 


WHITHER  ?  245 

served  betwixt  the  African  and  Latins  churches,  their  Doctors 
in  the  meantime  being  of  different  opinions  in  the  weighty  Ques' 
tion  of  Baptizing  of  Hereticks.  To  close  up  all  in  a  word  :  those 
churches  (falsely  so  called)  may  be  forsaken,  which  possesse  not 
the  Foundation  of  the  Apostles  preaching :  But  true  Churches 
ought  not  to  be  deserted  and  pluckt  asunder  from  others  for  the 
errors  of  particular  Doctors,  because  the  Faith  of  Churches 
leanes  not  upon  the  names  or  writings  of  single  Persons."  * 

The  theological  systems  of  the  three  great  branches 
of  Protestantism  have  been  elaborated  by  a  priori  logic 
and  by  deduction  from  premises  that  are  not  sufficiently 
accurate  and  comprehensive.  They  have  all  of  them 
departed  a  long  distance  from  the  Scriptures  and  the 
Creeds  of  the  Reformation.  It  has  been  found  necessary 
in  recent  times  to  distinguish  between  the  theology  of 
the  Bible  and  the  theology  of  the  schools,  between  the 
doctrines  of  the  Confessions  of  Faith  and  the  doctrines 
of  the  theologians.  There  are  now  three  distinct  the- 
ological disciplines  that  have  to  do  with  Christian  doc- 
trine— Biblical  Theology,  Symbolics,  and  Dogmatics. 
These  do  not  by  any  means  correspond.  Protestantism 
has  fallen  into  a  great  error  in  its  doctrinal  development. 
It  has  substituted  Protestant  scholasticism  for  mediaeval 
scholasticism,  and  Protestant  Tradition  for  Roman  Cath- 
olic Tradition.-]-  It  is  necessary  to  overcome  this  error  of 
the  Protestant  divines.  As  Davenant  says  : 

"  1  conceive  it  no  great  difference  whether  we  place  unwritten 
traditions  in  joint  commission  with  the  holy  Scriptures,  or  wheth- 
er we  enforce  our  controversies  on  all  churches  to  be  knowne 
and  beleeved,  under  the  same  necessity  of  salvation,  with  a  solid 
and  manifest  doctrine  of  the  Gospel."  J 

"  It  would  apply  some  plaister  to  this  soare,  if  the  Divines  of 
both  sides  would  remember,  that  although  all  the  Articles  of 
the  Catholique  Faith  are  plaine,  and  perspicuous  (as  written  in 


*  "  Exhortation,"  1641,  p.  151.  f  See  pp.  12,  21.  \  1.  c.,  p.  3. 


246  BARRIERS. 

God's  Word  with  capitall  Letters,  so  that  he  that  runneth  may 
read  them),  yet  what  thence  is  extracted  by  the  chymistry  of 
man's  understanding  are  divers  and  of  different  kinds,  most  of 
them  so  obscure  that  they  escape  the  eyes  of  the  most  sharpe- 
sighted  Divines.  We  must  therefore  confidently  leane  with  all 
our  weight  on  what  the  Scriptures  have  decided  ;  but  not  lay  so 
much  stresse  on  the  consequences  of  our  deduction.  Luther 
said  well  out  of  Ambrose,  Away  with  Logicians,  where  wee  must 
beleeve  Fishermen.  For  in  the  mysteries  of  Faith  the  majesty  of 
the  matter  will  not  bee  pent  within  the  narrow  roome  of  Reason, 
nor  come  under  the  roof  of  Syllogisme  ;  wherefore  the  same  Luther 
wisely  admonisheth  us,  that  in  matters  surmounting  the  capac- 
ity of  Humane  Reason,  we  beware  of  Etymologies,  Analogies, 
Consequences,  and  Examples."* 

Another  sin  of  Protestantism  as  well  as  of  Romanism 
has  been  the  abuse  of  the  sacred  Scriptures  by  improper 
methods  of  interpretation.  The  grammatical  and  the 
historical  sense  has  been  neglected.  The  variety  of  type 
of  the  Biblical  authors  has  been  ignored.  The  Scrip- 
tures have  been  too  often  interpreted  to  conform  to  the 
Rule  of  Faith.  The  Rule  of  Faith  to  the  Reformers 
and  the  Westminster  divines  was  in  the  plain  passages 
of  Scripture,  but  the  Reformed  system  of  doctrine  of 
the  scholastic  type  was  often  substituted  for  the  Scrip- 
tural rule  of  faith,  and  thus  the  Scriptures  were  forced 
to  correspond  with  the  scholastic  system.  f  It  mat- 
ters little  if  texts  can  be  adduced  in  favor  of  these 
elaborations  of  doctrine  unless  these  passages  speak  in 
such  plain  language  that  they  convince  mankind  in  gen- 
eral. As  Herbert  Palmer,  one  of  the  Westminster  di- 
vines, says  :  "  When  we  have  to  do  with  Scriptures  that 
are  ambiguous,  then  those  things  produced  should 
not  be  with  too  much  rigor  urged  upon  other  men."  \ 


*  "  Exhortation,"  pp.  6,  7.  f  Briggs1  "  Biblical  Study,"  p.  362. 

J  MS.  Minutes  of  Westminster  Assembly,  ii.,  f.  252. 


WHITHER?  247 

Thomas  Gataker,  another  Westminster  divine,  tersely 
says  :  "  Fundamental  poynts  ly  in  a  narrow  compass."  * 
Calybute  Downing,  another  Westminster  divine,  says : 
"  Fundamentals  in  points  of  belief  are  few."f 
Richard  Baxter  says : 

"  And  indeed  he  knoweth  not  man,  who  knoweth  not  that  uni- 
versal unity  and  concord  will  never  be  had  upon  the  terms  of 
many,  dark,  uncertain,  humane,  or  unnecessary  things,  but  only 
on  the  terms  of  things,  few,  sure,  plain,  divine,  and  necessary"  \ 

The  names  Lutheran,  Reformed,  and  Arminian  are 
the  badges  of  distinct  systems  of  Protestant  faith ;  they 
will  continue  so  to  be.  It  is  fortunate  that  Arminian  is 
not  a  name  given  to  any  particular  Church.  The  names 
Reformed  and  Lutheran  smack  of  the  old  controversies ; 
they  have  been  rightly  abandoned  by  the  United  Church 
of  Germany,  and  the  name  Evangelical  has  taken  their 
place.  It  would  be  a  happy  thing  for  American  Chris- 
tianity if  these  names  could  be  abandoned  here  likewise. 
The  names  will  remain,  however,  so  long  as  the  differ- 
ences remain.  We  have  to  learn  the  great  principle  of 
Unity  in  Variety.  That  variety  we  find  in  the  sacred 
Scriptures  in  the  four  great  types  of  doctrine  represented 
by  James,  Peter,  Paul,  and  John.  We  find  them  in  the 
Old  Testament  in  the  Levitical  writers,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  prophets  on  the  other,  to  which  we  must  add  as 
separate  types  the  authors  of  the  Wisdom  Literature  and 
of  the  Psalter.  We  find  these  types  in  all  the  great  re- 
ligions of  the  world  ;  they  recur  in  Christian  history ;  they 
are  rooted  in  the  different  temperaments  of  mankind  ; 
they  manifest  themselves  in  those  great  types  that  dom- 


*  /.  c.,  ii.,  f.  248. 

t  "  Considerations  towards  a  Peaceable  Reformation,"  p.  4,  London,  1641. 

J  "True  and  only  Way  of  Concord,"  p.  143,  London,  1680. 


248  BARRIERS. 

inate  all  thinking  and  acting,  that  we  call  Mysticism, 
Rationalism,  and  Scholasticism.*  Accordingly  the 
Church  of  Christ,  like  the  Scriptures,  should  comprehend 
them  all  and  not  exclude  any  of  them.  There  can  be  no 
true  unity  that  does  not  spring  from  this  diversity.  The 
one  Church  of  Christ  is  vastly  more  comprehensive  than 
any  one  denomination.  If  the  visible  Church  is  to  be 
one,  the  pathway  to  unity  is  in  the  recognition  of  the 
necessity  and  the  great  advantage  of  comprehending  the 
types  in  one  broad,  catholic  Church  of  Christ. 

"  And  brotherly  unity  is  the  genuine  and  rare  fruit  of  brotherly 
love,  by  every  Christian  to  be  endeavoured  to  the  utmost  extent 
of  gospell  possibility.  Nothing  in  our  own  spirits  of  corrupt  dis- 
temper, carnall  ends,  or  undue  prejudice  should  hinder  it;  noth- 
ing in  our  brethren  sound  in  the  faith,  and  of  godly  conversation, 
though  not  absolutely  agreeing  with  us  in  way  of  disposition,  or 
opinion  in  all  things ;  Christians  cannot  be  all  alike  here.  All 
have  not  the  same  intellectual  complexion.  It  is  a  great  defect 
of  meekness  of  wisdome  to  refuse  all  agreement  with  others  be- 
cause they  agree  not  with  us  in  all  things.  Neither  may  any  other 
Christian  precept  hinder  us."t 

UNIFORMITY  OF  WORSHIP. 

The  third  great  barrier  to  Christian  Union  is  the  in- 
sisting upon  uniformity  of  worship.  This  is  a  special  sin 
of  the  Church  of  England.  The  British  prelates  pressed 
this  theory  of  Christian  union  to  an  extreme,  and  perse- 
cuted the  Puritans  in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  cen- 
turies. The  result  of  this  persecution  was  civil  war  and 
the  organization  of  the  three  national  churches  of  Great 
Britain,  with  a  large  number  of  dissenting  churches. 

Uniformity  of  worship  has  proved  the  fruitful  source 


*  Briggs'  "  Biblical  Study,"  pp.  367  seq. 

t  "  The  Agreement  of  the  Associated  Ministers  of  the  County  of  Essex,"  p.  12, 
London,  1658. 


WHITHER  ?  249 

of  discord.  The  points  of  difference  between  the  Puri- 
tans and  the  Prelatists  at  the  start  were  not  great.  The 
separation  greatly  increased  them.  The  churches  that 
sprang  into  existence  as  the  result  of  the  civil  wars  are 
farther  apart  in  worship  than  they  were  when  they  were 
all  nestled  in  the  bosom  of  the  Churches  of  England, 
Scotland,  and  Ireland.  It  would  have  cost  the  British 
bishops  very  little  concession  to  have  satisfied  the  Puri- 
tans at  the  close  of  the  sixteenth  century,  or  even  at  the 
Savoy  Conference  in  1660-61.  The  Puritans  were  as 
much  opposed  to  separation  as  the  Episcopal  party  and 
as  earnest  in  their  desire  for  a  national  establishment. 
But  the  bishops  refused  to  make  concessions,  and  in- 
sisted upon  uniformity  and  the  persecution  of  non- 
conformists.* The  distractions  in  religious  affairs  in  Brit- 
ish and  American  church  history  are  in  great  part  due 
to  that  fatal  blunder.  There  can  be  no  such  thing  as 
uniformity  of  worship.  The  separating  of  non-conform- 
ing churches  did  not  lead  to  uniformity,  even  in  the 
Church  of  England  itself. 

Francis  Makemie  well  puts  it  at  the  close  of  the  seven- 
teenth century: 

"  Therefore  let  us  still  value  and  esteem  unity  in  Doctrine  and 
Worship,  and  the  greater  and  more  weighty  matters,  preferring 
it  before  an  exact  and  accurate  uniformity,  in  every  Punctilio  of 
Circumstance  and  Ceremony,  which  no  nation  hath  hitherto  at- 
tained, the  Church  of  England  not  excepted  ;  for  what  uniformity 
is  between  your  Cathedral  and  Parochial  worship  ?  between  such 
churches  as  have  Organs  and  those  that  want  them  ?  between 
such  as  Sing,  or  Chant  the  Service,  and  such  as  do  not  ?  between 
such  as  read  the  whole  Service,  and  others  that  Minse  it,  and  read 
but  a  part  ?  between  those  that  begin  with  a  free  Prayer,  and 
such  as  do  notf  And  in  the  same  Congregations,  what  Uniform- 
ity is  between  such  as  use  Responses,  and  such  as  do  notf  between 


*  Briggs'  "American  Presbyterianism,"  pp.  82  seq. 


250  BARRIERS. 

such  as  bow  to  the  East,  or  the  Altar,  and  such  as  do  not  ?  be- 
tween such  as  bow  the  knee,  and  those  that  only  bow  the  head,  at 
the  Name  or  Word,  Jesus  ?  What  uniformity — between  such  as 
Sing  Psalms,  and  most  that  do  not?  And  I  find  many  of  the 
Sons  of  the  church,  break  uniformity,  and  Canons,  as  well  as  their 
neighbours  :  what  uniformity  act  or  Common  Prayer,  allows  any 
to  begin  with  a  Prayer  of  their  own,  as  the  greatest  and  best  have 
done,  though  others  call  it  a  Geneva  trick ?  What  uniformity 
act  enjoins  Organs,  and  Singing  Boyes :  and  where  is  bowing  to 
the  East  and  Altar,  with  all  other  Church  Honours,  commanded  ? 
What  warrants  the  use  of  \}S\G,  public k  Form  for  private  Baptism  ? 
why  is  the  burial  Service  read  over  any  Dissenters  that  are  all  ex- 
communicated'by  your  Canons? 

"  Let  me  humbly  and  earnestly,  with  all  Submission,  address 
the  conformable  clergy — in  this  Island,  to  instruct  their  People, 
that  they  and  we  profess  the  same  Christian  and  Protestant  Re- 
ligion, only  with  some  alterations  in  external  Ceremonies  and  cir- 
cumstances ;  that  we  may  unite  in  affection  and  strength,  against 
the  common  enemy  of  our  Reformation,  and  concur  in  the  great 
work  of  the  Gospel,  for  the  manifestation  of  God's  glory,  and  the 
Conviction,  Conversion,  and  Salvation  of  Souls  in  this  Island,  in- 
structing such  as  are  Ignorant,  in  the  principal  and  great  things 
of  Religion,  promoting  vertue  and  true  holiness,  and  Preaching 
down  and  reproving  all  Atheism,  irreligion,  and  profanity,  seal- 
ing and  confirming  all  by  an  universal  Copy,  pattern  and  example, 
of  a  holy,  and  ministerial  life  and  Conversation."  * 

There  are  just  as  great  differences  at  the  present  time 
in  the  worship  of  the  Church  of  England  and  her  daugh- 
ters. With  the  optional  parts  of  the  liturgy,  the  ad- 
ditions that  may  be  made,  especially  in  ceremonial,  in 
robes,  in  decorations,  in  altar  furniture,  and  in  gestures 
of  bodily  worship,  uniformity  of  worship  is  certainly  out 
of  the  question.  The  Reformed  Churches  and  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  have  liturgical  forms  for  sacra- 
mental services,  and  some  of  the  Reformed  Churches 
have  optional  liturgies  for  the  whole  or  part  of  the  Sab- 

*  "  Truths  in  a  True  Light,"  pp.  ai,  22.     Edin.,  1699. 


WHITHER?  251 

bath  services.  The  German  Reformed  and  the  Lutheran 
Churches  have  liturgical  books.  But  there  is  no  uni- 
formity of  worship  in  any  of  these  Churches.  The  Pres- 
byterian Churches  have  Directories  of  Worship  all  based 
on  the  Westminster  Directory,  but  these  have  been 
changed  from  time  to  time.  They  prescribe  the  order 
of  services,  but  leave  the  use  of  forms  of  prayer  entirely 
optional.  There  is  an  entire  lack  of  uniformity  of  wor- 
ship in  the  Presbyterian  churches.*  The  Congregational 
and  the  Baptist  churches  have  still  greater  diversity  in 
mode  and  forms  of  worship.  There  is  greater  diversity 
of  worship  in  the  Christian  Church  now  than  at  any 
previous  period  of  its  history.  There  is  every  reason 
to  suppose  that  this  will  increase  rather  than  diminish. 
There  is  no  hope  whatever  of  uniformity  of  worship. 

And  yet  there  is  essential  unity  even  in  the  midst  of 
all  this  diversity.  The  five  great  parts  of  worship  are 
found  in  all  churches — namely,  Common  Prayer,  Sacred 
Song,  Reading  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  the  Sermon, 
and  the  Apostolic  Benediction.  The  differences,  in  the 
selections  of  the  themes  of  sermons,  and  in  the  passages 
of  Scripture  to  be  read,  do  not  destroy  the  essential  unity 
in  these  two  parts  of  public  worship.  Some  Presbyterian 
Churches  have  insisted  upon  uniformity  in  sacred  song 
no  less  than  the  Church  of  England  has  insisted  upon 
uniformity  in  common  prayer.  We  have  to  thank  the 
Episcopal  Churches  for  our  freedom  in  praise  no  less 
than  the  Presbyterian  Churches  for  our  freedom  in 
prayer.  Happily  there  are  at  present  few  Presbyterians 
who  insist  upon  limiting  our  praise  to  the  Psalm-book 
and  Paraphrases,  and  the  bare,  cold  worship  without 
organs.  It  is  a  singularity  of  several  branches  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  that  they  insist  upon  excluding 

*  See  pp.  48  seq. 


252  BARRIERS. 

Christian  hymns  and  musical  instruments  from  divine 
worship.  So  far  as  musical  instruments  are  concerned, 
these  form  so  important  a  part  in  the  worship  of  the  an- 
cient temple,  and  in  the  great  assemblies  of  the  Church 
in  heaven,  revealed  to  us  by  the  Apocalypse,  that  one  is 
amazed  that  any  one  should  refuse  to  employ  them.  In 
our  opinion  the  use  of  musical  instruments  in  the  wor- 
ship of  God  will  be  increased  in  the  future.  The  drift 
is  so  strong  in  that  direction  that  it  is  impossible  to  re- 
sist it.  But  if  any  congregations  should  prefer  to  wor- 
ship without  musical  instruments  they  should  be  allowed 
to  do  so.  Only  they  ought  not  to  commit  the  sin  of 
rending  the  Church  of  Christ  on  such  unscriptural  and 
unreasonable  grounds  as  these.  The  use  of  Christian 
hymns  began  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament. 
There  are  several  hymns  in  the  New  Testament  writ- 
ings ;  so  all  ages  of  the  Church  have  produced  hymns  of 
beauty  and  of  power.  There  is  no  sufficient  reason  why 
these  should  not  be  used  in  divine  worship.  There  is  no 
prohibition  of  their  use  in  Scripture.  There  is  no  pre- 
scription of  the  use  of  the  Psalter  in  public  worship 
either  in  the  Old  or  the  New  Testament.  The  Psalter 
was  a  book  for  the  synagogue  rather  than  the  temple. 
If  any  congregation  should  desire  to  limit  itself  to  the 
Book  of  Psalms  and  Paraphrases  of  Scripture  we  have 
no  objection,  so  long  as  it  does  not  obtrude  this  opinion 
upon  other  congregations.  It  is  a  sin  and  a  shame  to 
rend  the  Church  of  Christ  for  such  a  trifle  as  this. 

In  sacred  song  uniformity  has  entirely  disappeared. 
Private  selections  of  hymns  have  taken  the  place  of  the 
official  hymn-book  of  the  Churches,  and  these  are  used 
often  without  regard  to  denomination.  A  considerable 
number  of  Christian  hymns  are  used  in  all  Protestant 
churches  that  do  not  limit  themselves  to  the  Psalms  and 


WHITHER  ?  253 

Paraphrases.  It  would  be  easy  to  select  a  hymn-book 
of  considerable  size,  even  from  their  own  books,  that 
would  satisfy  all  of  these  churches.  The  freedom  here 
has  wrought  greater  unity  than  we  find  in  those  parts  of 
worship  where  there  is  less  liberty. 

There  is  greater  difficulty  in  the  common  prayer.  The 
excellence  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  of  the  Church 
of  England  is  generally  recognized.  But  considerable 
alterations  will  need  to  be  made  in  order  to  make  it  ac- 
ceptable to  evangelical  Christians  in  general ;  and  there 
must  be  the  recognition  of  the  liberty  of  free  prayer  in 
a  part  of  the  service.  I  would  prefer  the  use  of  a 
prayer-book  for  all  the  parts  of  common  prayer  at  the 
Sabbath  services,  with  the  exception  of  a  brief  free 
prayer  at  the  close  of  the  services,  expressing  the  special 
needs  of  the  congregation  and  the  day.  But  the  mass 
of  evangelical  Christians  would  not  at  present  go  so  far- 
as  this.  It  should  also  be  said  that  there  are  other  ad- 
mirable prayer-books  besides  that  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land. The  prayer-books  of  the  Lutheran  and  Re- 
formed Churches  have  also  their  advantages  ;  and  there 
is  no  good  reason  why  we  should  be  confined  to  forms 
of  prayer  of  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries,  or 
those  of  earlier  date.  The  eighteenth  and  nineteenth 
centuries  ought  to  be  able  to  enrich  a  prayer-book  that 
would  adequately  express  the  worship  of  our  day.  The 
Churches  that  use  prayer-books  should  direct  their  ener- 
gies to  enriching  them  by  removing  obsolete  parts  and 
adding  more  appropriate  prayers  from  other  service 
books  and  modern  divines.  If  an  effort  were  to  be  made 
to  enrich  the  prayer-books  similar  to  that  which  has  been 
so  successful  in  the  hymn-books,  it  would  rnpet  with 
equal  if  not  greater  success.  There  is  a  movement  in 
that  direction  in  the  American  Episcopal  Church  which 


254  BARRIERS. 

is  worthy  of  commendation.  But  it  is  probable  that  un- 
official hands  will  have  to  lead  in  this  noble  work.  A 
very  successful  effort  of  this  kind  has  been  made  in  the 
Church  of  Scotland. 

On  the  other  hand,  those  Churches  that  have  no 
prayer-books  should  overcome  their  prejudices  against 
their  use.  These  prejudices  are  largely  traditional,  and 
are  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  Puritan  fathers  had  to 
battle  for  liberty  against  uniformity.  But  it  is  a  happy 
circumstance  that  the  Presbyterian  Churches  have  not 
taken  any  official  action  against  the  use  of  liturgical 
books.  Any  Presbyterian  congregation  has  the  right  at 
the  present  time  to  use  a  book  of  prayer  if  it  see  fit,  and 
some  congregations  avail  themselves  of  the  privilege  in 
whole  or  in  part.  There  are  great  advantages  in  written 
forms  of  prayer.  As  Richard  Baxter  says  : 

"The  famousest  Divines  in  the  Church  of  God,  even  Luther, 
Zivtnglius,  Melancthon,  Cafoin,  Perkins,  Sibbs,  and  abundance  of 
non-conformists  of  greatest  name  in  England,  did  ordinarily  use 
a  form  of  prayer  of  their  own,  before  their  Sermons  in  the  Pul- 
pit, and  some  of  them  in  their  families  too.  Now,  these  men 
did  it  not  through  idleness  or  through  temporizing,  but  because 
some  of  them  found  it  best  for  the  people,  to  have  oft  the  same 
words ;  and  some  of  them  found  such  a  weakness  of  memory, 
that  they  judged  it  the  best  improvement  of  their  own  gifts."* 

We  hail,  with  gratitude  to  God,  the  noble  declaration 
of  the  House  of  Bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church — 

"  that  in  all  things  of  human  ordering  or  human  choice  relating 
to  modes  of  worship  and  discipline  or  to  traditional  customs, 
this  Church  is  ready,  in  the  spirit  of  love  and  humility,  to  forego 
all  preferences  of  her  own." 


*  "  Cure  of  Church  Divisions,"  p.  183.     London,  1670. 


WHITHER?  255 

We  sincerely  hope  that  other  Christian  Churches  are 
ready  to  meet  them  in  the  same  generous  spirit. 

The  greatest  difficulty  remains  in  the  celebration  of 
the  Sacraments.  Many  of  the  Baptist  churches  hold 
that  immersion  is  the  only  mode  of  baptism.  This  im- 
plies that  all  who  have  not  been  baptized  by  immersion 
are  not  members  of  the  visible  Church,  and  that  there- 
fore there  are  no  other  visible  churches  than  these  Bap- 
tist churches.  The  doctrine  of  close  communion  is  a 
necessary  consequence  of  this  doctrine,  for  no  one  can 
rightly  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper  who  has  not  been 
baptized.  We  apprehend  that  our  Baptist  brethren  do 
not  realize  how  intolerant  this  position  really  is.  It  is 
more  intolerant  than  the  doctrine  that  refuses  to  recog- 
nize the  validity  of  the  ordination  of  the  ministry  of  the 
non-Episcopal  Churches,  for  this  doctrine  only  denies  the 
ministry  of  these  Churches,  while  it  recognizes  their  bap- 
tism as  valid,  and  that  they  and  their  people  are  mem- 
bers of  the  visible  Church  of  Christ.  But  the  Baptist 
doctrine,  with  one  blow,  destroys  the  ministry  and  the 
ecclesiastical  position  of  all  the  people  of  other  Christian 
churches,  by  refusing  to  recognize  the  validity  of  their 
baptism. 

After  all  the  scholarly  discussion  upon  the  subject  of 
the  primitive  mode  of  baptism,  the  Baptist  churches  are 
in  a  small  minority  of  the  Christian  world  on  this  ques- 
tion. Baptism  by  immersion  is  not  distinctly  com- 
manded in  the  New  Testament,  and  it  is  by  no  means 
clear  that  immersion  was  the  mode  by  which  our  Saviour 
and  His  apostles  were  baptized.  Our  Baptist  brethren 
have  not  been  able  to  convince  the  ministry  of  the  other 
Christian  churches,  who  are  equally  competent  with 
themselves  to  interpret  the  Bible  and  the  first  Christian 
century.  I  do  not  believe  that  Christ  and  His  apostles 


256  BARRIERS. 

were  baptized  by  immersion.  I  would  not  hesitate  to 
follow  any  evidence  that  could  be  produced  to  prove 
the  Baptist  position.  Immersion  would  be  a  small  price 
to  pay  for  Christian  Unity.  But  my  study  of  the  ques- 
tion has  convinced  me  that  Jewish  ceremonial  baptisms 
were  by  sprinkling  or  pouring ;  that  such  ceremonial 
baptisms  are  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament ;  that  the 
symbolism  of  baptism  is  in  favor  of  pouring  rather  than 
submersion  ;  that  partial  immersion  of  the  body  and  not 
submersion  is  all  that  can  be  proved  from  the  New 
Testament  and  the  testimony  of  Christian  antiquity ; 
and  that  there  is  nothing  essential  in  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism. If  we  should  concede,  with  many  scholars  who 
are  not  Baptists,  that  immersion  was  the  primitive 
mode  of  baptism,  it  would  by  no  means  follow  that  the 
mode  of  baptism  should  be  by  immersion  throughout 
all  time.  It  seems  to  me  that  some  Baptists  sin  as 
greatly  in  their  insistance  upon  uniformity  in  the  cer- 
emony of  baptism,  as  some  Episcopalians  in  insisting 
upon  uniformity  in  certain  ceremonies  of  worship,  and 
some  Presbyterians  in  insisting  upon  uniformity  in  psalm- 
singing.  If  the  Baptists  could  affirm,  from  their  point 
of  view,  that  the  baptisra  celebrated  in  other  Christian 
churches  is  valid  as  to  its  essence,  owing  to  the  applica- 
tion of  water  in  the  name  of  the  blessed  Trinity,  though 
irregular  in  form,  the  barrier  would  be  removed.  Other 
churches  recognize  baptism  by  immersion  as  valid,  and 
the  ceremony  might  by  common  consent  be  left  to  the 
conscientious  preference  of  Associations  of  churches, 
congregations  or  even  individuals. 

It  is  not  credible  that  the  Redeemer  would  refuse 
the  grace  of  regeneration  and  communion  in  His  Church 
to  those  who  trust  in  Him  and  follow  Him,  even  if  they 
have  made  some  mistakes  in  the  mode  of  baptism.  We 


WHITHER?  257 

cannot  think  that  the  Church  ceased  to  exist  in  all  those 
Christian  centuries  in  which  the  practice  of  immersion 
ceased,  and  that  it  was  reserved  for  the  i/th  century  to 
give  birth  to  the  true  and  pure  Church  of  baptized  saints. 
The  most  serious  difficulty  in  the  department  of 
worship,  is  in  the  observance  of  the  sacrament  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.  Here  diversity  of  doctrine  determines 
to  some  extent  the  ceremonies  that  are  used.  The 
objections  that  the  Puritans  made  against  the  cere- 
mony of  kneeling  have  been  removed  by  time.  No 
one  would  impute  to  the  members  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  any  adoration  of  the  bread  and  the 
wine,  such  as  was  made  by  Crypto-Roman  Catholics  in 
the  Church  of  England  in  the  sixteenth  century.  The 
Presbyterian  method  of  sitting  at  tables  has  been  gen- 
erally abandoned  on  account  of  its  great  inconvenience. 
The  present  fashion  of  sitting  in  pews  during  the  cele- 
bration is  a  modern  practice  that  has  little  to  recom- 
mend it.  It  might  be  well  to  return  to  the  more  reverent 
postures  of  kneeling  or  standing  in  the  solemn  partak- 
ing of  the  Lord's  Supper.  In  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  the  ceremonies  allow  people  of  widely  different 
vfews  to  partake  of  the  same  bread  and  wine  in  the 
same  service.  In  the  Evangelical  churches  of  Germany, 
Lutheran  and  Reformed  partake  of  the  same  bread  and 
the  same  cup.  In  the  Presbyterian  and  Congregational 
churches  Calvinists  and  Zwinglians  sit  down  together  at 
the  communion  feast.  I  would  rather  partake  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  with  one  who  believed  in  the  real  pres- 
ence of  Christ,  even  though  he  were  a  Lutheran,  than 
commune  with  one  who  denied  the  real  presence,  even 
though  he  were  a  Presbyterian.  I  see  no  sufficient 
reason  why  all  of  these  may  not  hold  their  variant 
opinions  and  yet  join  in  the  Supper  of  the  Lord. 


258  BARRIERS. 

"  The  cup  of  blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  a  communion 
of  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  The  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  a 
communion  of  the  body  of  Christ  ?  seeing  that  we,  who  are  many, 
are  one  bread,  one  body ;  for  we  all  partake  of  the  one  bread  " 
(i  Cor.  x.  16,  17). 

John  Bergius,  the  court  preacher  of  Brandenburg,  well 
said: 

"  Whosoever  hath  this  gracious  help  and  presence  of  Christ 
ever  before  his  eyes,  will  easily  forget  that  unprofitable  strife  of 
words  about  such  a  presence  of  an  invisible,  untouchable,  incom- 
prehensible Body,  wherein  he  cannot  comfort  himselfe,  and 
whereof  he  cannot  tell  what  effect  or  benefit  it  hath ;  and  will 
tremble  again  and  be  ashamed  before  the  face  of  Christ,  to  con- 
•demne  or  to  cast  out  of  Christ's  Communion  those  that  heartily 
believe  and  set  before  their  eyes  onely  his  helpfull  and  gracious 
effectual  presence.  Whereas  on  the  contrary  it  may  be  justly 
questioned  of  many,  that  quarrel  so  much  of  Christ's  corporal 
being  on  earth,  whether  they  truely  believe  that  he  is  in  Heaven, 
and  doth  see  and  hear  and  will  judge  such  unchristian  conten- 
tions." * 

TRADITIONALISM. 

Traditionalism  is  another  great  barrier  in  the  way  of 
Christian  Union.  There  are  in  human  nature  two  forces 
which,  like  action  and  reaction,  tend  to  keep  everything 
in  stability — the  conservative  and  the  progressive. 
Either  of  these  apart  is  hurtful.  Their  combination  is 
a  great  excellence.  There  can  be  no  improvement  with- 
out progress.  There  can  be  no  genuine  improvement 
unless  the  previous  attainments  have  been  conserved. 
Conservatism  is  healthful,  but  it  too  often  reacts  until  it 
becomes  mere  Traditionalism.  This  is  at  present  one  of 
the  chief  barriers  to  the  reunion  of  Christendom. 

The  United  States  of  America  contain  the  largest 
body  of  Christians  in  any  nation  under  heaven  and  the 

*  "  The  Pearle  of  Peace  and  Concord,"  p.  47. 


WHITHER  ?  259 

greatest  variety  of  ecclesiastical  organizations,  represent- 
ing nearly  all  the  national  Churches  of  Europe  and  the 
bodies  of  Christians  dissenting  from  them.  These  all 
have  entire  freedom  to  develop  in  accordance  with  their 
own  internal  principles  and  organic  life.  Here  the 
greatest  variation  in  Christendom  is  to  be  found.  Here, 
then,  the  problem  of  Christian  Union  must  be  worked 
out.  The  great  variations  in  Christianity  that  exist  side 
by  side  in  America  at  the  present  time  are,  with  few  ex- 
ceptions, not  of  American  origin  and  growth.  The 
variations  simply  reflect  the  differences  that  exist  in  the 
different  nations  of  Europe.  They  were  brought  to 
America  by  the  colonists  from  Europe.  In  many  re- 
spects these  American  daughters  are  nearer  to  the 
mother  Churches  of  Europe  of  the  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries  than  the  daughters  that  have  re- 
mained in  the  original  homestead.  In  America  there 
is  a  tenacious  adherence  to  opinions  and  customs 
that  are  regarded  in  Europe  as  antiquated.  This  tra- 
ditionalism is  quite  remarkable  in  view  of  the  great 
progress  that  has  been  made  by  the  Churches  of  the 
same  faith  and  order  in  Europe. 

The  Reformed  Church  exists  in  two  bodies — the  Ger- 
man and  the  Dutch.  The  differences  are  chiefly  in  tra- 
ditional usages,  and  these  are  the  only  things  that , 
stand  in  the  way  of  the  combination  of  them  both  with 
the  Presbyterians  in  one  organism.  There  was  a  splen- 
did opportunity  of  combining  British  Presbyterianism 
with  the  Reformed  churches  in  1744,  under  the  advice 
of  the  Synods  of  North  and  South  Holland.  It  failed, 
owing  to  the  strife  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  and  the 
division  of  the  American  Presbyterians  into  two  rival 
synods.*  Another  effort  was  made  soon  after  the 

*  See  Rriggs'  "  American  Presbyterianism,"  pp.  284  seq. 


260  BARRIERS. 

American  Revolution,  but  it  did  not  succeed.  It  is  de- 
sirable that  these  efforts  should  be  speedily  renewed. 
There  is  no  doctrinal  difficulty  in  the  way,  because  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism  and  the  Westminster  Confession 
are  acceptable  to  both  bodies.  The  liturgical  books  of 
the  Reformed  Churches  are  optional  books,  and  would 
continue  so  to  be  in  the  united  Church.  The  differences 
in  usage  in  other  respects  are  in  the  government  and 
worship  of  the  congregations.  Here  each  congregation 
should  be  left  free  to  follow  its  own  customs.  I  can 
see  no  difficulties  that  might  not  be  readily  removed  by 
a  conference  of  divines  who  really  desire  the  consumma- 
tion of  organic  union. 

The  American  churches  are  in  general  over-conserva- 
tive in  matters  of  doctrine  and  worship,  but  in  their 
forms  of  government  and  practical  religion  they  have 
adapted  themselves  to  the  altered  conditions  and  circum- 
stances of  the  new  world.  They  collectively  bear  the 
marks  of  the  American  national  life.  They  have  com- 
mon features  that  distinguish  them  from  the  churches 
of  Europe,  that  make  them  all  constituent  parts  of 
American  Christianity. 

In  some  respects  the  American  churches  are  tradi- 
tional and  in  other  respects  radical  when  compared  with 
the  churches  of  Europe.  There  is  thus  an  internal  in- 
consistency that  will  ere  long  produce  great  changes  that 
may  be  little  less  than  revolutionary.  The  practical  side 
of  Christianity  will  ere  long  overcome  the  traditionalism 
in  doctrine  and  worship,  and  reconstruct  it  on  broader 
lines  and  in  more  comprehensive  schemes ;  so  that  there 
will  be  better  correspondence  between  the  doctrines  and 
worship  and  the  real  American  Christian  life.  These 
traditions  are  those  of  foreign  national  Churches  that 
grew  up  out  of  historical  circumstances  that  have  long 


WHITHER  ?  261 

past  and  that  are  no  longer  appropriate  to  the  circum- 
stances of  a  new  age  and  a  new  continent.  Other  tradi- 
tions originated  in  old  conflicts  that  have  passed  away, 
leaving  no  other  trace  behind  than  those  old  banners 
and  battle-flags,  with  which  it  seems  necessary  that  the 
denominations  should  parade  once  in  a  while. 

ALLIANCES  AND   FEDERAL  UNIONS. 

There  is  a  great  movement  in  the  direction  of  alliances 
of  kindred  Churches.  The  Alliance  of  Reformed  Churches 
holding  the  Presbyterian  system  embraces  all  Churches 
of  the  Reformed  faith  and  Presbyterian  order  through- 
out the  world.  They  unite  on  the  consensus  of  the  Re- 
formed Confessions.  An  effort  was  made  to  define  that 
consensus,  but  it  was  clearly  seen  that  such  an  effort 
must  lead  to  the  construction  of  a  new  creed,  and  would 
develop  differences  and  conflicts.  It  was  accordingly 
abandoned.  It  seems  better  to  leave  the  work  of  defin- 
ing that  consensus  to  historians. 

The  Episcopal  and  Methodist  Episcopal  Churches 
have  also  constituted  world-wide  Alliances  in  a  similar 
way.  This  is  a  great  step  in  the  direction  of  Christian 
Union.  But  a  greater  one  should  soon  be  made  in  an 
alliance  of  these  Alliances  in  a  more  general  council. 
The  Evangelical  Alliance  has  done  a  good  work  in  the 
past,  but  it  is  a  voluntary  association  of  kindred  spirits, 
and  is  in  no  sense  a  representative  body.  There  can  be 
no  effective  Alliance  unless  that  Alliance  represents  the 
Churches  that  constitute  it ;  in  an  assembly  of  delegates 
chosen  for  conference.  The  times  are  well-nigh  ripe  for 
such  an  Alliance  of  the  Churches  in  America ;  and  we 
may  anticipate  that  there  will  be  such  an  Alliance  for 
the  Christian  world  at  no  very  great  distance  in  the 
future. 


262  BARRIERS. 

But  these  alliances  are  only  preparatory  to  closer 
union.  The  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Churches  of 
America  are  considering  whether  they  may  not  unite  in 
Federal  union  in  some  general  representative  body  while 
they  preserve  their  own  distinguishing  features  in  differ- 
ent classes,  presbyteries  and  synods.  It  is  probable 
that  this  ideal  will  be  attained  in  a  few  years. 

In  the  meanwhile  the  American  Episcopal  Church  has 
issued  a  proposal  for  the  reunion  of  Christendom  on  the 
basis  of  four  terms ;  and  this  proposal  has  received  the 
endorsement  of  the  Lambeth  Conference  representing 
the  Church  of  England  and  her  daughters.  These  pro- 
posals, as  revised  by  the  Lambeth  Conference,  are : 

"  That,  in  the  opinion  of  this  Conference,  the  following  Arti- 
cles supply  a  basis  on  which  approach  may  be  by  God's  blessing 
made  toward  Home  Reunion  :  (a)  The  Holy  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments,  as  '  containing  all  things  necessary  to 
salvation,'  and  as  being  the  rule  and  ultimate  standard  of  faith. 
(b)  The  Apostles'  Creed  as  the  baptismal  symbol,  and  the  Nicene 
Creed  as  the  sufficient  statement  of  the  Christian  faith,  (c)  The 
two  sacraments  ordained  by  Christ  Himself — Baptism  and  the 
Supper  of  the  Lord — ministered  with  unfailing  use  of  Christ's 
words  of  Institution,  and  of  the  elements  ordained  by  Him. 
(d}  The  Historic  Episcopate,  locally  adapted  in  the  methods  of 
its  administration  to  the  varying  needs  of  the  nations  and  peo- 
ples called  of  God  into  the  unity  of  His  Church. 

"  That  this  Conference  earnestly  requests  the  constituted  au- 
thorities of  the  various  branches  of  our  communion,  acting,  so 
far  as  may  be,  in  concert  with  one  another,  to  make  it  known 
that  they  hold  themselves  in  readiness  to  enter  into  brotherly 
conference  (such  as  that  which  has  already  been  proposed  by  the 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America)  with  representatives  of 
other  Christian  communions  in  the  English-speaking  races,  in 
order  to  consider  what  steps  can  be  taken  either  toward  corpo- 
rate Reunion  or  toward  such  relations  as  may  prepare  the  way 
for  fuller  organic  unity  hereafter. 

"  That  this  Conference  recommends  as  of  great  importance,  in 


WHITHER?  263 

tending  to  bring  about  Reunion,  the  dissemination  of  informa- 
tion  respecting  the  standards  of  doctrine  and  the  formularies  in 
use  in  the  Anglican  Church  ;  and  recommends  that  information 
be  disseminated,  on  the  other  hand,  respecting  the  authoritative 
standards  of  doctrine,  worship,  and  government  adopted  by  the 
other  bodies  of  Christians  into  which  the  English-speaking  races 
are  divided." 

In  these  Resolutions,  the  Lambeth  Conference  ad  opted 
the  movement  begun  some  months  since  by  the  House 
of  Bishops  of  the  American  Episcopal  Church,  and  has 
thereby  made  it  a  world-wide  movement.  If  I  under- 
stand these  terms  aright,  they  are  not  to  be  interpreted  in 
the  special  sense  of  any  particular  party  in  the  Anglican 
communion,  but  are  to  be  taken  in  that  sense  that  is 
common  to  all  of  these  parties  in  the  Church  of  England 
and  in  the  American  Episcopal  Church.  Presbyterians 
are  entitled  to  look  at  them  from  the  point  of  view  of 
the  Low-Church  and  the  Broad-Church  parties,  and  it  is 
not  fair  to  interpret  them  as  if  they  involved  the  special 
position  of  the  High-churchmen. 

Committees  of  conference  have  been  appointed  by 
the  several  denominations  in  America  on  the  basis  of 
these  proposals,  and  there  are  good  reasons  for  the  hope 
that  something  may  be  accomplished. 

I  adhere  to  what  I  said  when  these  terms  were  first 
proposed  : 

The  four  terms  that  are  set  forth  therein  as  "  essential 
to  the  restoration  of  unity  among  the  divided  branches 
of  Christendom,"  are  in  my  judgment  entirely  satisfac- 
tory, provided  nothing  more  is  meant  by  their  au- 
thors than  their  language  expressly  conveys.  There  is 
room  for  some  difference  of  interpretation,  but  these 
terms  ought  to  be  received  in  the  same  generous 
manner  in  which  they  are  offered,  in  the  hope  that  the 


264  BARRIERS. 

differences  will  be  removed  by  conference  and  discus- 
sion. 

No  Presbyterian  can  consistently  object  to  (a)  "  the 
Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  as  the 
revealed  Word  of  God,"  or  (c)  "  the  two  sacraments,  Bap- 
tism and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord,  administered  Vith  un- 
failing use  of  Christ's  words  of  institution,  and  of  the 
elements  ordained  by  Him." 

It  might  be  objected  that  (b)  "  the  Nicene  Creed,  as 
the  sufficient  statement  of  the  Christian  faith,"  is  too  nar- 
row a  plank  for  a  summary  of  Christian  doctrine,  and 
that  it  ignores  the  subsequent  history  of  doctrine  in 
Christendom.  But  Presbyterians  can  hardly  exact  from 
other  religious  bodies  the  maximum  of  the  Westminster 
Standards.  If  Episcopalians  are  willing  to  waive  their 
own  doctrinal  standards  in  order  to  union  upon  the  fun- 
damental creed  of  Christendom,  I  do  not  see  with  what 
propriety  other  denominations  can  refuse  to  meet  them 
on  this  common  platform.  It  is  not  proposed  that  the  de- 
nominations should  abandon  their  own  symbols  of  faith, 
but  that  they  should  find  a  common  ground  for  unity. 

The  fourth  term,  (d~)  "  the  historic  episcopate  locally 
adapted  in  the  methods  of  its  administration  to  the 
varying  needs  of  the  nations  and  peoples  called  of  God 
into  the  unity  of  the  Church,"  gives  more  room  for  dif- 
ference of  opinion.  But  it  is  certain  if  the  English 
bishops  had  offered  these  terms  to  the  Westminster 
divines,  there  would  have  been  no  separation.  The 
English  Presbyterians  offered  to  unite  on  the  basis  of 
"  the  reduction  of  Episcopacy  under  the  form  of  synod- 
ical  government,"  proposed  by  Archbishop  Ussher,  but 
the  English  bishops  declined.*  Presbyterians  are  bound 


*  Briggs'  "  American  Presbyterianism,"  p.  80. 


WHITHER?  265 

by  their  own  history  to  meet  the  Episcopalians  on  this 
platform.  If  the  House  of  Bishops  mean  to  advance 
thus  far,  they  have  taken  a  great  step  toward  the  reunion 
of  Christendom.  The  delicate  and  difficult  questions 
involved  in  the  adaptation  of  the  historic  Episcopate 
might  be  removed  by  friendly  conference  in  the  spirit  of 
Jesus  Christ. 

The  House  of  Bishops  say  nothing  of  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer  or  the  Canons  of  the  Church.  We  un- 
derstand that  the  following  clause  refers  to  them :  "  That 
in  all  things  of  human  ordering  or  human  choice  relating 
to  modes  of  worship  and  discipline  or  to  traditional  cus- 
toms, this  Church  is  ready,  in  the  spirit  of  love  and  hu- 
mility, to  forego  all  preferences  of  her  own."  If  this 
reference  be  correct,  this  proposal  is  all  that  could  be 
reasonably  required.* 

The  work  of  Christian  Union  is  a  work  which  begins 
in  every  family,  and  which  rises  in  greater  and  greater 
sweeps  of  influence  until  it  covers  the  nation  and  the 
Christian  world  and  is  absorbed  in  the  innumerable  com- 
pany about  the  throne  of  God  and  the  Lamb. 

"All  this  while  hitherto  we  have  striven  (long  enough)  in 
words  one  against  another  for  Religion  with  much  zeale  and 
heat ;  it  is  now  high  time  for  us  to  begin  once  of  all  sides  to  con- 
tend and  strive  about  this  ;  who  can  most  manifest  and  exercise 
his  Religion  and  Faith  with  the  best  Christian  workes  and  that 
towardes  his  Adversaries,  that  one  might  say  to  another  in  the 
words  of  the  Apostle  James,  Shew  me  thy  Faith  by  thy  workes, 
and  I  will  shew  thee  my  Faith  by  my  workes  (James  ii.  18).  This 
would  indeed  be  the  most  effectual  Demonstration,  which  every 
plain  Christian  would  be  able  to  see,  touch,  and  feel,  who  other- 
wise cannot  so  well  satisfie  himself  with  a  naked  Demonstration 
of  bare  words  and  arguments."  t 


*  Presbyterian  Review,  viii.,  p.  132. 

t  John  Bergius,  "  The  Pearle  of  Peace  and  Concord,"  p.  180.    London,  1655. 


CHAPTER  X. 
THITHER. 

WE  have  seen  that  there  is  a  drift  in  modern  Chris- 
tianity away  from  the  Standards  of  the  Reformation  and 
the  Symbols  of  the  i6th  and  I7th  centuries;  that  in 
some  respects  the  leaders  of  the  Churches  have  hardened 
and  sharpened  the  doctrines  by  excessive  definition  in 
the  field  of  Protestant  polemics ;  that  in  other  respects 
the  Churches  have  fallen  back  from  the  high  ideals  of  the 
1 7th  century;  that  there  have  been  departures  from  the 
Symbols  of  Faith  into  various  forms  of  heterodoxy ;  and 
that  there  are  great  perplexities  in  the  minds  of  thought- 
ful Christians  of  our  day.  We  have  also  seen  that  the 
barriers  between  the  denominations,  erected  chiefly  in 
the  i/th  century,  have  been  broken  through,  and  to  a 
large  extent,  broken  down,  and  that  the  spirit  of  Chris- 
tian unity  is  moving  over  the  troubled  waters  to  bring 
peace  and  order  out  of  the  confusion  and  chaos  of  sects. 
Whither  shall  we  go  in  our  striving?  What  shall  be  the 
ideal  to  which  we  shall  direct  our  efforts?  What  other 
ideal  can  a  Christian  man  set  before  him  than  Jesus 
Christ  his  Saviour,  union  and  communion  with  Him, 
complete  conformity  to  His  will,  and  entire  assimilation 
to  His  likeness?  What  other  goal  can  an  earnest  scholar 
aim  at  than  real  orthodoxy,  the  truth  of  God,  the  whole 
truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth  ? 

Progress  Jn  religion,  in  doctrine,  and  in  life  is  de- 
manded of  our  age  of  the  world  more  than  of  any  previ- 
(266) 


THITHER.  2G7 

ous  age.  Every  Christian  should  make  up  his  mind  to 
follow  the  guidance  of  the  divine  Spirit,  who  will  fulfil 
the  promise  of  the  Master  and  lead  us  unto  all  truth. 
There  has  never  been  a  period  in  which  the  scholar  had 
such  a  vast  circle  of  truth  in  which  to  study.  There  has 
never  been  a  time  when  the  Church  had  such  a  vast 
work  to  do  for  the  Master.  The  possibilities  for  think- 
ing and  for  working  are  wonderful — the  ideals  set  before 
us  are  magnificent.  All  other  departments  of  human 
learning  are  advancing,  every  other  human  enterprise  is 
pushing  with  enormous  energy.  Is  the  Church  of  Jesus 
Christ  to  drift  along  in  the  rear,  too  conservative  to  make 
any  more  progress  than  it  is  forced  to  make ;  too  re- 
actionary to  be  aggressive,  except  in  attack  upon  those 
who  would  excite  it  by  criticism  and  stimulate  it  by  dis- 
coveries to  take  its  proper  place  in  the  advancing  host 
of  God  ?  Research,  speculation,  investigation,  inven- 
tion, discovery  are  everywhere  welcomed  save  in  theol- 
ogy. Novelties  are  everywhere  else  earnestly  sought 
for,  but  novelties  in  theology  are  regarded  as  little  bet- 
ter than  heresies.  But  there  are  Christian  scholars  who 
will  not  pull  back  with  the  reactionaries,  who  refuse  to 
sleep  with  the  conservatives,  who  decline  to  drift  idly 
with  the  stream ;  who  are  determined  to  steer  toward 
the  goal  of  the  high  calling  of  God  in  Jesus  Christ ;  who 
will  use  all  the  energy  of  human  nature  and  all  the  re- 
sults of  modern  learning  in  theological  research,  in  re- 
ligious discovery,  and  in  ethical  invention,  looking  to 
their  enthroned  Saviour  for  strength,  and  following  the 
guidance  of  the  divine  Spirit  in  quest  of  the  truth,  the 
sanctifying  truth  of  God. 

Progressive  theology  as  the  true  orthodoxy  has  to 
consider  three  classes  of  doctrines:  (i)  those  that  have 
been  defined  by  the  consensus  of  Christendom  ;  (2)  those 


268  WHITHER? 

that  are  in  dispute  between  the  Christian  Churches  ;  and 
(3)  those  that  still  need  investigation  and  which  have 
not  yet  been  defined  by  the  consensus  or  the  discord  of 
Christendom. 

THE  CONSENSUS  OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

The  first  class  of  doctrines  that  we  have  to  consider 
are  those  which  have  been  defined  by  the  consensus 
of  Christendom.  These  may  be  regarded  as  the  solid 
attainments  of  Christianity.  It  is  not  at  all  likely 
that  these  will  be  changed  by  progressive  theology. 
They  will  be  modified  to  some  extent  by  the  light  shed 
upon  them  from  other  doctrines,  but  such  modification 
will  be  unessential.  Those  doctrines  upon  which  Roman 
Catholics  and  Protestants  agree  are  the  basis  of  progress 
and  the  foundation  upon  which  the  Reunion  of  Chris- 
tendom must  take  place.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church 
and  the  Protestant  Churches  are  agreed  as  to  nine-tenths 
or  more  of  the  contents  of  Christianity.  Until  the  year 
of  the  Reformation  they  were  one  Church.  All  the  gen- 
uine achievements  of  fifteen  Christian  centuries  are  com- 
mon property.  The  Reformers  were  born  in  the  me- 
diaeval Church,  were  baptized  therein,  were  trained  in 
its  sacred  doctrines  and  sacraments,  and  many  of  them 
were  ordained  by  its  pious  bishops.  The  Reformers  de- 
nounced the  papacy  as  a  hierarchical  constitution,  but 
they  did  not  deny  the  Church.  They  were  forced  to 
separate  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  but  they  did  not 
create  a  new  Church  ;  they  reformed  the  Church  of  North- 
ern Europe,  while  the  Church  in  Southern  Europe  re- 
mained unreformed  under  the  tyranny  of  Papacy.  Those 
so-called  Protestants  who  refuse  to  recognize  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  as  a  true  Church  of  Jesus  Christ,  are 
guilty  of  heresy  and  schism.  Such  a  theory  leaves 


THITHER.  269 

Protestantism  hanging  in  the  air  with  fifteen  centuries 
of  Church  History  beneath  it,  cuts  it  off  from  any  con- 
nection with  historical  Christianity,  makes  it  a  new  re- 
ligion of  the  i6th  century,  and  gives  over  to  the  devil 
the  ancient  and  mediaeval  Church  with  all  its  splendid 
array  of  saints  and  martyrs.  It  is  a  stab  at  the  vitals  of 
any  Christian  Church  to  cut  it  off  from  the  one  body  of 
Christ  and  sever  it  from  the  great  tree  of  life  that  was 
planted  at  Pentecost  and  that  has  grown  like  the  cedar 
twig  of  Ezekiel's  vision  until  it  has  well-nigh  filled  the 
earth. 

IS  ROME  AN  ALLY? 

Protestants  and  Roman  Catholics  are  agreed  as  to  the 
essentials  of  Christianity.  Our  common  faith  is  based 
on  the  so-called  Apostles'  Creed,  our  worship  on  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  our  morals  upon  the  Ten  Command- 
ments and  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Who  will  venture 
to  say  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  is  not  as  faith- 
ful to  these  foundations  of  our  common  religion  as 
Protestants  ?  Taking  our  stand  on  the  Apostles'  Creed 
we  must  add  to  the  articles  of  faith  on  wnich  we  are  agreed 
all  the  doctrinal  achievements  of  the  Church  for  fifteen 
centuries,  the  doctrine  of  the  unity  of  God,  the  person 
and  work  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Holy  Trinity,  original  sin 
and  human  depravity,  salvation  by  divine  grace,  the  ab- 
solute need  of  the  atonement  of  Jesus  Christ.  On  all 
these  great  doctrines  of  our  religion  Romanism  and 
Protestantism  are  one.  Here  we  are  allies,  and  it  is  our 
common  task  to  proclaim  these  doctrines  to  the  heathen 
world,  and  to  overcome  by  them  all  forms  of  irreligion 
and  infidelity  in  Christian  lands.  Differences  about 
justification  by  faith,  and  salvation  by  the  divine  grace 
alone,  and  the  authority  of  the  Church  as  regards  the 


270  WHITHER? 

determination  of  the  canon  of  Scripture  and  its  inter- 
pretation, ought  not  to  prevent  our  co-operation  and 
alliance  in  the  great  work  of  proclaiming  the  common 
faith.  Our  conflict  over  the  doctrines  in  which  we  differ 
would  be  more  fruitful  in  good  results,  if  our  contest 
should  be  based  upon  concord  and  alliance  in  the  com- 
mon faith ;  if  our  contest  could  be  narrowed  to  the  real 
points  of  difference,  and  conducted  in  a  brave,  chival- 
rous, and  loving  manner. 

Taking  our  stand  upon  the  Lord's  Prayer,  we  observe 
that  we  are  agreed  as  to  the  greater  part  of  Christian 
worship.  We  worship  God  in  common,  in  morning  and 
evening  assemblies,  by  prayer,  songs  of  praise,  the  read- 
ing and  preaching  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the  celebration 
of  the  sacraments  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper. 
The  matter  of  this  worship  is  for  the  most  part  common 
in  both  these  great  bodies  of  Christians.  I  have  heard 
sermons  in  Roman  Catholic  churches  in  Europe  which 
were  more  evangelical  and  less  objectionable  than  many 
sermons  I  have  heard  in  leading  Protestant  Churches  in 
Berlin,  London,  and  New  York.  It  is  well  known  that 
the  Protestant  books  of  liturgy  contain  a  considerable 
amount  of  material  derived  from  the  old  mass  books, 
and  they  are  all  the  more  valuable  for  that.  Roman 
Catholic  Baptism  has  many  superstitions  connected  with 
it,  but  the  essentials  of  baptism  are  there  in  the  bap- 
tism by  the  minister  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinity.* 
Roman  Catholic  observance  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  con- 
nected with  the  worship  of  the  materials  of  the  Supper 
under  the  doctrine  that  they  are  really  the  body  and 
blood  of  the  divine  Lord ;  but  who  can  deny  that  pious 
souls  by  faith  really  partake  of  the  body  and  blood  of 

*  See  pp.  183  seq. 


THITHER.  271 

Christ  in  this  holy  sacrament,  notwithstanding  the  errors 
in  which  it  is  enveloped  ? 

In  all  matters  of  worship  we  are  in  essential  accord 
with  Roman  Catholics,  and  we  ought  not  to  hesitate  to 
make  an  alliance  with  them,  so  far  as  possible,  to  maintain 
the  sanctity  of  the  Sabbath  as  a  day  of  worship,  and  to 
proclaim  to  the  world  the  necessity  of  worshipping  God 
in  His  house,  and  of  becoming  members  of  His  Church 
by  baptism,  and  of  seeking  union  and  communion  with 
the  Saviour  by  Christian  worship,  the  study  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
With  this  recognition  of  concord,  Protestants  may  de- 
bate with  Romanists  in  a  friendly  manner,  and  seek  to 
overcome  their  errors,  remove  the  excrescences  they 
have  heaped  upon  that  simple  worship  in  the  spirit  and 
in  truth,  which  seems  to  us  more  in  accordance  with 
the  Scriptures  and  the  wishes  of  our  Saviour.  In  the 
great  constituent  parts  of  prayer — invocation,  adora- 
tion, thanksgiving,  confession  of  sin,  petition,  interces- 
sion and  consecration, — Roman  Catholics  and  Protestants 
are  in  agreement.  In  Christian  song  the  differences 
are  still  less.  If  our  hymn-books  were  stripped  of  hymns 
from  the  ancient  and  mediaeval  Church,  and  from  modern 
Roman  Catholics,  they  would  be  bare  indeed. 

In  the  sphere  of  Christian  morals  we  take  our  com- 
mon stand  on  the  Ten  Commandments  and  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount.  Romanism  and  Protestantism  are  agreed 
as  to  the  vast  majority  of  all  questions  of  morals.  It 
is  true  there  is  a  great  deal  of  immorality  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  in  some  countries,  and  we  think  it  may  be 
shown  that  as  a  rule  Protestantism  is  productive  of  better 
morals  than  Romanism ;  but  this,  after  all,  is  a  question 
of  more  or  less,  and  to  say  the  least,  Protestantism  has 
little  to  boast  of. 


272  WHITHER  r 

"  To-day,  as  related  to  heathen  peoples  and  religions,  the 
Judas  Iscariot  of  Christianity  is  Christendom  itself.  At  first, 
Christianity  had  no  Christendom  at  all  behind  it ;  had  behind  it 
only  the  incomparable  personality  and  teachings  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth.  Peter,  Paul  and  John  had  no  Constantine  nor  Charle- 
magne nor  Henry  VIII.  to  carry.  There  was  then  no  Christian 
England,  forcing  opium  on  heathen  China;  no  Christian  Amer- 
ica, driving  Chinamen  across  the  continent  from  San  Francisco 
to  New  York  ;  no  sailors,  Greek,  Catholic  or  Protestant,  defiling 
every  seaport  of  every  continent  and  island.  If  Christendom 
were  only  Christian  really,  how  much  longer  would  China  prob- 
ably be  Confucian  ?  or  Japan  Buddhistic  ?  or  India  Brahmanic  ? 
or  Turkey  Mohammedan  ?  "  * 

On  all  these  practical  questions  of  Christianity  it  is  of 
the  highest  importance  that  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
and  Protestant  Churches  should  make  an  alliance.  Their 
joint  efforts  would  have  an  influence  upon  public  and 
private  morals  such  as  the  world  has  not  yet  witnessed. 
We  may  agree  to  differ  and  debate  on  all  questions 
where  there  is  discord.  But  it  is  folly  for  us  to  waste 
our  energies  in  antagonism,  when  we  are  agreed  on  the 
vast  majority  of  questions  that  come  before  the  public, 
and  when  co-operation  and  alliance  would  be  productive 
of  such  vast  good. 

The  differences  between  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
and  the  Protestant  Churches  since  the  Reformation  con- 
sist chiefly  in  two  things:  (i),  The  Roman  Catholic 
Church  declined  to  follow  the  Protestant  reformers  when 
they  reformed  the  Churches  in  Northern  Europe.  (2), 
It  took  a  conservative  position  and  refused  to  advance 
into  the  higher  doctrinal  and  ethical  development  of 
Protestantism.  On  these  two  principles  all  the  differ- 
ences in  faith  and  practice  rest.  Here  the  battle  for  the 


»  R.  D.  Hitchcock,   "Eternal  Atonement,"  p.   298.    New  York:  Charles 
Scribner's  Sons,  1888. 


THITHER.  273 

truth  and  right  must  go  on  until  the  one  side  or  the 
other  achieve  the  victory,  or  rather  until  both  are  recon- 
ciled in  something  higher  and  better,  in  a  new  and 
greater  Reformation  of  the  Church,  when  the  sections 
of  truth  conserved  by  each  shall  be  pieced  together  in 
the  whole  truth  ;  and  the  errors  of  both  that  cannot  be 
assimilated  will  be  cast  aside. 

THE  DISSENSUS   OF  CHRISTENDOM. 

The  second  class  of  doctrines  that  we  have  to  consider, 
are  those  in  regard  to  which  the  Christian  Churches  are 
divided.  We  have  already  studied  these  in  the  previous 
chapter,  and  have  seen  that  the  differences  are  of  less 
importance  than  they  used  to  be,  now  that  Protestant 
polemics  has  been  overwhelmed  by  irenics.  Accordingly 
it  is  in  favor  in  some  quarters  to  gather  up  all  the  ques- 
tions of  main  importance  upon  which  there  is  concord, 
especially  in  Protestantism,  and  ignore  the  old  questions 
of  discord,  and  thus  construct  a  consensus  as  a  basis  of 
Christian  union. 

It  is  thought  by  some  that  a  simple  creed  is  the  path- 
way to  Christian  union.  I  shall  not  deny  that  such  a 
creed  is  desirable.  It  might  be  well  to  formulate  the 
consensus  of  Christendom,  the  consensus  of  Protestant- 
ism, the  consensus  of  the  Reformed  Churches,  and  so 
on.  This  will  all  be  accomplished  in  good  time  by  the 
science  of  Symbolics.  These  are  historical  questions  for 
scholarly  investigation,  and  not  for  official  action  of 
Christian  Churches. 

But  true  theological  progress  cannot  content  itself 
with  such  a  consensus.  The  questions  debated  between 
the  Churches  since  the  Reformation  are  important  ques- 
tions. Our  fathers  did  not  think  and  labor  and  suffer 
in  vain.  The  creeds  of  the  Reformation  are  the  precious 


274  WHITHER  ? 

symbols  of  our  faith.  We  cannot  give  them  up.  They 
are  the  battle-flags  that  have  been  carried  in  many  a 
field  of  intellectual  and  moral  contest,  and  they  bear  the 
signs  of  conflict  and  victory.  The  battle  must  be  fought 
out  to  the  end.  Truth  is  mighty,  and  in  the  end,  it  will 
prevail.  The  battle  will  disclose  the  higher  principles 
in  whose  equity  alone  reconciliation  can  be  made. 

The  Westminster  Standards  are  the  banners  of  Puri- 
tanism, the  most  precious  doctrinal  achievement  of  the 
i /th  century.  Let  us  never  fail  to  honor  them  and 
maintain  them  !  But  let  us  not  put  them  in  a  false  po- 
sition, or  prove  unfaithful  to  their  trust.  Let  us  never 
forget  the  principle  of  liberty  of  conscience  for  which 
the  Puritan  fathers  fought  and  died.  They  have  en- 
shrined it  in  the  Westminster  Confession.*  They  do  not 
claim  infallibility,  inerrancy,  or  completion.  They  do 
not  propose  to  speak  the  final  word  in  theology ;  they 
tell  us  that,  "  The  purest  churches  under  heaven  are  sub- 
ject both  to  mixture  and  error,"  f  and  that  "  all  synods  or 
councils  since  the  apostles'  times,  whether  general  or  par- 
ticular, may  err,  and  many  have  erred  ;  therefore  they  are 
not  to  be  made  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  but  to  be 
used  as  a  help  in  both."  ^  Those  are  not  true  disciples  of 
the  Westminster  faith  who  would  confine  Congregation- 
alism and  Presbyterianism  for  all  time  to  the  definitions 
of  the  symbols,  and  make  them  the  barriers  to  progress. 
They  thereby  transgress  the  Standards  themselves  in 
their  essential  principles  and  their  express  language. 
We  must  recognize  that  there  are  inadequate  state- 
ments and  even  errors  of  doctrine  in  the  Westminster 
Standards  and  the  great  creeds  of  the  Reformation. 
We  should  be  ready  to  adjust  them  to  the  higher  knowl- 

*  See  p.  159.  t  "  Westminster  Confession,"  rsv.  5. 

J  "  Westminster  Confession,"  xxxi.  3. 


THITHER.  275 

edge  of  our  times  and  the  still  higher  knowledge  that 
the  coming  period  of  progress  in  theology  will  give  us. 

The  only  hope  of  reconciliation  of  differences,  and  of 
removal  of  errors,  is  by  advance  into  the  whole  truth  of 
religion,  doctrine,  and  morals.  The  differences  between 
Romanism  and  Protestantism  are,  as  we  have  seen, 
chiefly  that  Romanism  declined  to  give  up  its  errors  and 
to  advance  into  the  new  truth  of  the  Reformation.  So 
it  is  that  the  differences  between  the  churches  of  Prot- 
estantism are  due  to  the  same  essential  reasons.  Even 
Protestantism  has  retained  not  a  few  mediaeval  errors 
while  it  has  also  multiplied  its  own  errors.  Prot- 
estant churches  have  all  come  to  a  halt  in  their  prog- 
ress. The  differences  between  the  denominations  are 
partly  in  errors  retained  and  partly  in  progress  de- 
cline.d.  Harmony  and  reconciliation  are  in  the  pathway 
of  progress. 

Theological  progress  is  not  in  the  direction  of  sim- 
plicity, but  of  variety  and  complexity.  We  cannot  re- 
treat in  theological  definition ;  we  must  advance,  in  this 
scientific  age.  The  Apostles'  Creed  represents  the  sim- 
ple faith  of  the  early  Church ;  we  cannot  ignore  Chris- 
tian history  and  go  back  to  that.  The  Ante-Nicene 
Church  was  crude  in  its  theology ;  we  cannot  fall  back 
on  the  Nicene  Creed  as  a  complete  definition  of  Chris- 
tianity. The  inheritance  of  the  Truth  is  more  precious 
than  external  Unity.  Progress  is  to  be  made  by  more 
exact  definitions  in  theological  science,  not  by  suppres- 
sion of  truth  and  ignoring  of  differences  in  order  to  a 
superficial  and  transient  harmony.  Every  Christian 
should  follow  the  guidance  of  the  divine  Spirit  into  all 
truth,  and  regard  every  truth,  even  the  smallest,  as  un- 
speakably precious  ;  and  yet  we  should  have  in  mind  the 
proportions  of  truth,  and  bear  on  our  banner  the  golden 


276  WHITHER? 

words  of  Rupertus  Meldenius,  In  necessariis  unitas,  in 
non  necessariis  libertas,  in  utrisque  caritas. 

The  chief  reasons  of  difference  are  imperfect  knowl- 
edge and  an  indisposition  to  follow  the  truth  sincerely 
and  wholly  without  regard  to  consequences.  A  higher 
knowledge  will  in  time  remove  the  differences.  The 
barriers  seem  impassable  when  we  keep  in  the  low  levels 
of  doctrine  and  life.  When  we  climb  the  mountains 
and  ascend  the  peaks  of  Christianity  the  fences  and 
hedges  of  human  conceits  are  the  merest  trifles. 

NEW  DOCTRINES. 

The  third  group  of  doctrines  that  now  confronts  us 
consists  of  those  which  have  not  been  sufficiently  con- 
sidered, and  which  have  only  partially  been  defined  by  the 
Churches.  Here  is  the  field  in  which  progressive  theology 
is  chiefly  at  work  at  present,  and  here  are  the  doctrines 
that  are  to  be  opened  up  in  the  future.  The  symbols  of  the 
Churches  do  not  define  them,  and  Christian  scholars  can- 
not be  restrained  from  using  the  resources  of  modern 
learning,  criticism,  invention,  speculation,  and  logical 
development  in  their  investigation  and  statement. 

The  confession  of  a  church  is  its  constitution.  It  re- 
stricts liberty  and  binds  the  minister  to  the  definitions 
that  have  been  made  either  in  strict  or  liberal  subscrip- 
tion. But  it  is  also  a  pledge  and  guarantee  of  liberty  of 
investigation  and  of  statement  in  all  matters  upon  which 
the  faith  of  the  church  has  not  been  defined.  The  faith 
of  the  church  cannot  be  determined  by  majorities  in  ec- 
clesiastical courts  or  by  the  dictation  of  ecclesiastical 
demagogues  or  the  theses  of  little  popes  in  the  different 
denominations.  The  big  pope  is  worthy  of  much  greater 
consideration  than  a  thousand  little  ones.  Protestant- 


THITHER.  277 

ism  knows  no  other  master  than  Jesus  Christ,  the  King 
and  Head  of  the  Church. 

The  Westminster  Standards  are  not  the  barriers  to 
progress.  They  are  the  barriers  to  reaction.  They  are 
the  stepping-stones  of  progress ;  they  guide  the  advance 
in  Christian  theology.  They  show  what  has  been  accom- 
plished in  the  past ;  they  point  out  the  matters  of  differ- 
ence and  controversy;  they  open  the  questions  undeter- 
mined. The  statements  of  the  Westminster  Symbols 
are  by  no  means  perfect.  They  are  capable  of  revision 
and  improvement.  But  progress  is  not  in  that  direc- 
tion. That  is  a  work  for  the  rear-guard  of  the  Church. 
True  progress  is  made  by  advance  into  new  fields,  and  in 
an  irenic  discussion  of  the  points  of  difference  between 
the  denominations. 

"  What  is  Christianity  ?  This  question  is  put  and  pressed  to- 
day as  never  before.  And  sectarian  answers  are  behind  the  time. 
No  Creed  of  Orient  or  Occident,  ancient  or  modern,  has  spoken 
the  final  word.  Scientific  theology  has  still  its  errand  and  its 
rights,  though  the  more  we  refine,  the  more  we  differ.  The  time 
•yill  come,  when  the  more  we  differ,  the  better  we  shall  be  agreed  : 
differing  in  the  smaller,  agreeing  in  the  larger  things ;  far  apart 
in  the  spreading  branches,  knit  together  in  the  sturdy  trunk."  * 

BIBLICAL  CRITICISM. 

One  of  the  freshest  fields  for  discussion  in  our  day  is 
the  Bible  itself.  The  Bible  is  the  wonder  of  the  world, 
a  treasure  of  truth  for  all  ages.  It  is  a  surprise  of  mod- 
ern scholarship  that  after  so  many  centuries  so  little  is 
known  of  the  Bible.  The  Bible  has  become  a  new 
book  to  modern  Biblical  scholars — for  they  have  stripped 
off  the  crust  of  traditional  theories  and  found  it  to  be 
the  richest  mine  of  heavenly  truth.  The  modern  study 
of  the  Bible  has  taken  the  form  of  Biblical  criticism. 


*  R.  D.  Hitchcock,  "  Eternal  Atonement,"  p.  84. 


278  WHITHER? 

This  is  a  critical  age  of  the  world,  and  recent  criticisms 
have  been  stronger  and  more  comprehensive  than  any 
previous  criticisms.  Criticism  is  a  method  of  knowledge  ; 
it  reviews  and  re-examines  all  the  processes  of  human 
thought  and  tests  all  its  products.  Man  is  fallible.  Even 
the  best  of  men  are  so  liable  to  error  that  we  cannot  be 
sure  of  the  truth  of  their  work  until  we  have  reviewed 
it  for  ourselves  and  tested  it  at  every  point.  It  is  nec- 
essary that  we  should  know  the  truth.  We  cannot  rest 
with  confidence  upon  anything  that  is  uncertain.  Crit- 
icism is  the  test  of  the  certainty  of  knowledge  and  the 
method  of  its  verification.  Every  scholar  in  our  days 
who  would  be  exact  in  his  methods  and  sure  of  his  re- 
sults will  test  his  own  work  by  the  methods  of  criticism  ; 
and  he  will  not  accept  the  work  of  another  until  he  has 
submitted  it  to  the  same  tests  himself,  or  has  seen  it 
tested  by  others. 

The  scholars  of  previous  centuries  were  not  so  exact 
in  their  methods  and  were  less  careful  in  their  work. 
They  have  handed  down  an  jmmense  mass  of  learning, 
the  most  of  which  they  received  by  tradition  from  others. 
They  accepted  it  without  criticism,  and  they  transmitted 
it  as  they  received  it.  The  modern  scholar  cannot  ac- 
cept this  mass  without  criticism  any  more  than  he  can 
accept  the  new  learning  of  the  present  age.  It  is  neces- 
sary to  pass  it  all  through  the  fires  of  criticism  before 
we  can  give  it  our  confidence  and  build  upon  it  for  the 
future. 

Criticism  has  a  twofold  work ;  it  is  destructive  of  error, 
and  it  is  constructive  of  truth.  Its  first  work  is  destruct- 
ive. The  error  must  be  destroyed  before  the  truth  can 
be  given  its  place.  This  is  the  easier  work  of  criticism. 
It  is  less  difficult  to  pull  down  than  to  build  up  ;  to  see 
a  fault  than  to  appreciate  an  excellence ;  to  kill  an  error 


THITHER.  279 

than  to  quicken  a  germ  of  truth.  We  are  not  surprised 
that  the  great  majority  of  critics  have  been  destructive, 
and  that  the  chief  work  of  criticism,  thus  far,  has  been 
the  destruction  of  error ;  but  constructive  criticism  has 
not  been  wanting. 

i.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  recent  criticisms  have 
considerably  weakened  the  evidences  from  miracles  and 
predictive  prophecy.  To  many  minds  it  would  be  easier 
to  believe  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  and  the 
divinity  of  Jesus  Christ  if  there  were  no  such  things  as 
Miracles  and  Prediction  in  the  sacred  Scriptures.  The 
older  apologetic  made  too  much  of  the  external  marvels 
of  miracle-working  and  sought  to  find  in  history  the  ful- 
fillment of  the  minute  details  of  prediction.  But  it  has 
been  found  easier  to  prove  the  divinity  of  Christ  without 
miracles.  Belief  in  miracles  needs  to  be  sustained  by 
faith  in  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  necessary  to  prove  the  in- 
spiration of  the  Scriptures  as  the  product  of  the  spirit 
of  prophecy  before  we  can  advance  with  profit  into  the 
special  field  of  prediction.  Even  the  Scriptures  them- 
selves recognize  miracle-working  and  prediction  in  false 
prophets,  and  teach  us  to  distinguish  the  true  miracle 
and  the  true  prediction  from  the  false  by  their  internal 
character  and  their  conformity  to  truth  and  fact.  Re- 
cent criticisms  have  brought  these  lines  of  evidences 
into  better  accord  with  the  representations  of  the  Bible 
itself. 

The  Old  Testament  is  full  of  Theophanies  ;  and  in 
the  New  Testament  there  are  many  Christophanies  and 
Pneumatophanies.  These  manifestations  of  God  in  the 
forms  of  space  and  time  and  in  the  sphere  of  physical 
nature  are  of  vast  importance  in  the  unfolding  of  divine 
revelation.  These  are  the  centres  from  which  miracles 
and  prophecies  flow.  If  there  were  such  theophanies  or 


280  WHITHER? 

divine  manifestations  in  the  successive  stages  of  divine 
revelation,  then  we  should  expect  miracles  in  the  phys- 
ical world  and  prophecy  in  the  world  of  man.  If  Jesus 
Christ  is  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,  then  prophecy  and 
miracles  are  exactly  what  we  should  expect  so  long  as 
He  abode  in  the  flesh  in  this  world.  If  the  Holy  Spirit 
was  given  to  the  apostles  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and 
He  was  present  with  the  churches  of  the  apostles  in  the 
peculiar  manner  of  external  manifestations  of  pneuma- 
tophany,  such  as  are  described  in  the  New  Testament, 
we  are  not  surprised  at  the  occurrence  of  miracle-work- 
ing and  prophecy  during  that  period  ;  and  it  seems  to 
be  the  most  natural  thing  in  the  world  that  when  these 
divine  manifestations  ceased,  miracle-working  and  proph- 
ecy ceased  with  them.  If  then,  on  the  one  side,  recent 
criticisms  have  weakened  the  independent  value  of  the 
evidences  from  miracles  and  prediction,  they  have,  on  the 
other  side,  given  something  vastly  better  in  their  place. 
They  have  called  the  attention  to  the  presence  of  God 
with  His  people  in  external  manifestations  of  theophany 
to  guide  the  advancing  stages  of  the  history  of  redemp- 
tion. Here  is  the  citadel  of  our  religion,  to  which  all  its 
lines  of  evidence  converge,  the  centre  of  the  entire  reve- 
lation and  religion  from  which  prophecy  and  miracle- 
working  issue  in  all  their  variety  of  form.  The  evidences 
from  miracles  and  prophecy  gain  in  strength  when  they 
are  placed  in  their  true  relations  to  the  theophany  in 
which  the  unity  of  the  evidence  is  found. 

2.  Another  fault  of  the  older  apologetic  was  in  laying 
too  much  stress  upon  the  external  evidence  and  in  neg- 
lecting the  internal  evidence  for  the  inspiration  and  the 
canonicity  of  Scripture.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church 
bases  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  on  the  authority  of 
the  Church.  The  Reformers  rejected  this  external  au- 


THITHER.  281 

thority  and  found  the  evidences  for  the  Scriptures  in  the 
Scriptures  themselves,  in  the  voice  of  the  living  God 
speaking  to  the  believer  in  them  and  through  them.  As 
Luther  said,  "  The  Church  cannot  give  any  more  author- 
ity or  power  than  it  has  of  itself.  A  council  cannot 
make  that  to  be  of  Scripture  which  is  not  by  nature  of 
Scripture."  *  The  later  Reformed  and  Lutheran  scholas- 
tics abandoned  the  position  of  the  Reformers  and  fell 
back  upon  the  external  evidence  of  tradition  in  the  syn- 
agogue and  the  church.  In  this  they  committed  a  sad 
blunder,  which  greatly  injured  the  evidences  for  the  in- 
spiration and  the  canonicity  of  the  Bible.  Recent  criti- 
cisms have  weakened  this  line  of  evidence  and  given  us 
something  much  better  in  its  place.  They  have  revived 
the  views  of  the  Reformers  and  the  Puritans  and  have 
strengthened  the  lines  of  the  internal  evidences.  Here, 
again,  the  order  of  evidence  has  been  changed.  We  do 
not  first  prove  canonicity,  and  then  the  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures,  but  the  reverse  :  we  first  prove  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Scriptures,  and  then  the  canonicity  is  a  mat- 
ter of  course. 

3.  The  traditional  evidence  also  overestimated  the  ex- 
ternal authority  of  the  Bible,  in  accordance  with  the 
familiar  saying  that  the  Bible,  the  Bible  alone,  is  the 
religion  of  Protestants.  This  saying  is,  however,  a  cari- 
cature of  the  Protestant  position.  The  Protestant  relig- 
ion is  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  He  is  revealed  to 
us  in  the  Bible.  The  Reformers  recognized  the  living 
God,  the  risen  and  reigning  Christ,  in  the  Bible  ;  and 
they  regarded  the  Scriptures  as  a  means  of  grace  to 
bring  Christ  to  us  and  to  bring  us  to  Christ.  The  later 
theology  neglected  the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  as  a 


*  "  Disputatio  exc.  theolog.  Job.  Eccii  et  Lutheri  hist.,"  iii.,  129  seq. 


282  WHITHER  ? 

means  of  grace,  and  laid  undue  stress  on  the  doctrine  of 
their  inspiration.  It  substituted  the  authority  of  the 
external  word  of  the  letter  of  Scripture,  for  the  internal 
word  of  the  Master  of  the  Scripture.  Recent  criticisms 
have  in  part  overcome  this  fault.  They  have  pointed 
out  the  fault  of  building  our  faith  on  a  book,  instead  of 
the  living  God  and  Saviour.  They  have  called  more  at- 
tention to  the  God  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  Christ 
of  the  New  Testament  as  the  very  substance,  the  light 
and  glory  of  the  Bible. 

4.  Recent  criticisms  have  been  very  great  in  the  de- 
partments of  the  text  and  the  literature  of  the  Bible. 
These  have  been  reorganized  as  branches  of  science,  with 
exact  methods  and  well-defined  principles,  which  lead  to 
definite  and  reliable  results.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  there  has  been  a  large  amount  of  destructive  criti- 
cism here  which  has  disturbed  the  faith  and  unsettled 
the  convictions  of  multitudes. 

The  authority  of  the  old  textus  receptus  of  the  New 
Testament  has  been  destroyed,  but  criticism  has  given 
in  its  place  the  critical  New  Testaments  of  Tischendorf, 
and  VVestcott  and  Hort.  The  authority  of  the  Maso- 
retic  text  of  the  Old  Testament  has  been  undermined  ; 
but  critics  the  world  over  are  laboring  to  secure  a  better 
text  of  the  Old  Testament ;  and  they  will  succeed  in  a 
reasonable  time.  The  doctrine  of  verbal  inspiration  has 
been  destroyed,  and  it  has  been  shown  that  inspiration 
lies  back  of  the  external  form  or  letter  of  the  words  and 
is  in  the  inner  word,  the  substance,  and  the  sense.  Thus 
the  apologist  has  been  relieved  of  the  peril  of  resting 
the  whole  doctrine  of  inspiration  upon  the  adjective 
verbal,  and  the  critics  have  led  Christian  scholars  back  to 
the  sounder  position  of  the  great  Protestant  Reformers.* 

•Seep.  64. 


THITHER.  283 

5.  In  the  department  of  the  Higher  Criticism  recent 
criticisms  have  shown  that  the  traditional  theories  that 
David  wrote  all  the  Psalter,  Solomon  all  the  Wisdom 
Literature,  and  Moses  all  the  Pentateuch,  are  untenable. 
These  theories  are  without  sufficient  historical  support, 
and  are  against  the  internal  evidence  of  the  writings 
themselves.  Those  who  rest  their  faith  in  the  inspiration 
of  these  writings  upon  their  attachment  to  the  names  of 
these  holy  men  of  Israel  have  been  disturbed  by  recent 
criticisms,  and  so  far  their  lines  of  evidences  for  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Scriptures  have  been  destroyed.  But  recent 
criticisms  have  also  shown  that  the  Psalter  is  the  product 
of  the  religious  experience  of  God's  people  in  the  many 
centuries  of  the  history  of  Israel ;  that  the  literature  of 
Hebrew  Wisdom  is  the  fruit  of  the  wise  men  of  Israel  of 
many  generations;  and  that  the  Pentateuch  is  composed 
of  four  parallel  narratives  with  four  codes  of  legislation, 
resembling,  in  many  respects,  the  four  Gospels  in  their 
characteristic  differences  and  harmony. 

The  older  scholars  paid  no  attention  to  the  literary 
features  of  the  Bible.  They  did  not  distinguish  poetry 
from  prose,  and  dealt  with  the  literature  of  Wisdom  very 
much  as  they  used  the  work  of  the  chronicler.  They 
refused  to  find  any  fiction  in  the  Scriptures,  and  used 
the  whole  Bible  as  if  it  were  a  law  book,  a  quarry  for 
doctrines.  But  the  Higher  Criticism  of  recent  times 
has  carefully  distinguished  poetry  from  prose,  and  has 
discovered  a  large  amount  of  poetry  in  the  historical 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New  Testament. 
It  has  classified  the  poetry  and  studied  it  in  its  structure 
and  in  its  varieties  of  form.  It  has  distinguished  the 
several  kinds  of  history  and  prophecy,  and  has  not  been 
blind  to  the  beauties  of  fiction  and  the  proprieties  of  its 
use.  And  thus  the  Old  Testament  has  become  a  new 


284  WHITHER  ? 

book,  vastly  more  attractive  to  the  people,  as  well  as  to 
the  scholar.  This  enhanced  appreciation  of  the  literary 
excellence  of  the  Bible  has  opened  up  fresh  lines  of  evi- 
dence for  its  inspiration. 

6.  Modern  criticism  has  established  two  entirely  new 
theological  disciplines,  namely,  Biblical  Theology  and 
Contemporary  History  of  the  Bible.  Contemporary  His- 
tory sets  the  Bible  in  the  midst  of  the  external  history 
of  the  world  in  which  the  history  of  redemption  took 
place.  It  enables  us  to  see  the  influence  of  other  na- 
tions with  their  literature,  religion,  and  civilization 
upon  Israel,  the  people  of  God.  It  gives  us  a  test 
by  which  to  examine  the  Biblical  records.  On  the 
whole,  a  flood  of  light  has  been  thrown  upon  the  Bible. 
Many  old  difficulties  have  been  removed,  but  other  and 
more  difficult  questions  have  been  raised.  The  results 
have  very  much  changed  the  lines  of  Christian  evi- 
dence, and  are  likely  to  change  them  still  more  in  the 
future. 

Biblical  theology  traces  the  development  of  the  divine 
revelation  contained  in  the  Bible.  It  shows  us  the 
several  temperaments  of  human  nature,  such  as  we  find 
everywhere  in  history,  reflected  there  in  differences  of 
type  and  various  points  of  view  from  which  the  religion 
of  the  Bible  is  presented.  The  variety  of  the  Bible  is 
very  great  in  its  religious,  doctrinal,  and  ethical  concep- 
tions. There  are  those  who  press  these  variations  into 
inconsistencies,  and  even  contradictions,  so  as  to  destroy 
the  credibility  of  the  Bible.  But  recent  criticisms  have 
shown  that  these  varieties  combine  in  a  higher  unity. 
The  harmony  of  the  Bible,  coming  from  so  many  differ- 
ent authors,  in  different  periods  of  the  world,  writing  in 
different  languages  and  from  different  points  of  view, 
vastly  strengthens  the  evidences  for  the  credibility  and 


THITHER.  285 

the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  as  an  organic  whole,  the 
product  of  one  divine  Spirit. 

In  all  directions  recent  criticisms  have  been  destruct- 
ive of  false  methods  and  traditional  errors,  and  to  this 
extent  have  disarranged  the  lines  of  Christian  evidence 
and  wrought  destruction.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  re- 
cent criticisms  have  constructed  better  methods,  have 
revived  the  older  and  better  doctrine  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, and  have  led  to  a  closer  study  of  the  contents  of 
the  Bible.  Biblical  criticism  teaches  that  the  Scriptures 
are  to  be  interpreted  from  their  centre,  and  no  longer 
from  a  small  section  of  their  circumference. 

THE  FUTURE   LIFE. 

The  second  great  field  for  debate  in  our  times  is  the 
Future  Life.  Here  the  consensus  of  Christendom  is 
little,  the  dissensus  is  great,  the  questions  undefined 
greater  still.  Dogmaticians  have  enlarged  upon  the 
Creeds,  and  the  popular  theology  has  filled  up  the  out- 
lines of  the  future  life  with  crude  notions  and  fantastic 
theories.  But  the  Christian  Church  is  not  responsible 
for  these,  and  no  scholar  will  respect  them  sufficiently  to 
regard  them  in  any  sense  as  the  barriers  to  research.  The 
same  conflict  is  waged  here  between  the  progressives 
and  conservatives  as  in  the  department  of  Biblical  Criti- 
cism. The  discussion  leaps  the  bounds  of  the  denomi- 
nations and  the  lines  of  battle  are  entirely  independent 
of  churchly  considerations. 

The  future  life  has  been  a  blank  or  else  a  terror  to 
most  Protestants  and  the  comfortable  hopes  inspired  by 
the  New  Testament  have  not  been  enjoyed.  The  study 
of  the  future  state  in  recent  times  has  exposed  the  faults 
of  the  older  dogmaticians.  It  has  shown  that  the  doc- 


286  WHITHER  r 

trine  of  a  private  judgment  at  death  has  no  support  in 
the  Scriptures  or  the  Creeds,  and  that  it  obstructed  and 
obscured  the  doctrine  of  the  dies  ir<z,  the  ultimate 
judgment  of  the  world.*  It  has  shown  that  the  current 
theology  confuses  and  confounds  the  hell  and  heaven  of 
the  middle  state  and  the  hell  and  heaven  of  the  ultimate 
state  after  the  day  of  judgment,  and  it  has  accordingly 
made  the  middle  state  more  of  a  reality  to  many  minds.f 
It  has  held  up  the  light  of  Christian  ethics  and  shown 
that  the  doctrine  of  immediate  sanctification  at  death  is 
contrary  to  the  Scripture  and  the  Creeds,  and  has  filled 
the  middle  state  with  ethical  contents  as  a  place  for 
Christian  sanctification. :£  It  has  called  attention  to  the 
fact  that  Jesus  Christ  knows  of  but  one  unpardonable 
sin,  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  asks  what  is  its 
significance  in  viewof  the  middle  state.  It  has  revived 
the  doctrine  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  of  the  descent  of 
Jesus  into  hades,  His  preaching  to  the  imprisoned  spirits 
and  His  redemption  of  souls  from  the  ancient  abode  of 
the  dead.  It  has  called  attention  to  the  inconsistency 
into  which  the  Church  has  drifted  an  the  new  doctrine 
of  the  universal  salvation  of  infants,  and  has  demanded 
that  this  doctrine  shall  be  considered  in  some  way,  so  as 
to  correspond  with  the  Protestant  doctrine  of  the  order 
of  salvation.§  It  has  so  pressed  the  awfulness  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  eternal  damnation  of  the  heathen  world, 
exceeding  the  Christian  world  by  hundreds  of  millions, 
that  the  older  doctrine  of  the  damnation  of  all  heathen 
has  been  abandoned,  and  efforts  have  been  made  to  find 
some  mode  of  relief  by  which  some  or  many  of  the 
heathen  may  be  saved  by  the  grace  of  God.|]  All  these 
questions  are  now  in  dispute.  Men  are  seeking  relief  by 

*  See  p.  195.         t  See  pp.  207  seq.          \  See  p.  147. 
§  See  pp.  133  seq.  \  See  p.  118. 


THITHER.  287 

the  doctrine  of  the  extension  of  redemption  into  the 
middle  state,  by  conditional  immortality,  by  annihilation 
of  the  wicked,  and  by  reaction  to  the  Roman  Catholic 
doctrine  of  purgatory.  The  interest  in  these  questions 
of  the  future  life  is  wide-spread  and  is  increasing. 
There  -must  be  liberty  of  investigation  and  room  for 
differences  in  the  transition  period  through  which  we  are 
passing.  The  results  will  be  of  incalculable  advantage 
to  the  Church  —  for  when  the  future  life  has  become 
more  real,  more  certain,  more  fixed,  in  the  hopes  and 
anticipations  of  men,  this  life  will  gain  its  significance  as 
a  preparation  and  vestibule  of  the  better  life  to  come, 
Christians  will  live  in  hope,  expectation,  and  desire,  and 
this  hope  will  work  mightily  in  the  consecration  and 
sanctification  of  men. 

In  the  discussion  of  the  First  things  and  the  Last 
things,  Protestantism  is  now  engaged  upon  the  great 
things  of  our  religion.  The  First  things  will  strengthen 
our  faith  by  establishing  it  on  the  living  God  of  the 
Bible  instead  of  upon  the  letters  of  a  book.  The  Last 
things  will  inspire  our  hope  by  fixing  it  upon  the  en- 
throned Christ,  the  holy  catholic  Church,  and  the  com- 
munion of  saints  in  that  realm  to  which  we  are  all 
going  after  a  brief  interval  in  this  world. 

THE   HOLY   LIFE. 

The  third  great  question  of  debate  at  the  present 
time  is  Sanctification  and  the  related  topics  of  Christian 
Ethics,  Repentance,  and  a  Holy  Life.  If  Puritans  and 
Presbyterians  had  been  faithful  to  the  Westminster 
Standards  they  would  have  led  in  this  discussion  from 
the  vantage  ground  given  in  the  Puritan  doctrine  of 
sanctification.*  But  their  unfaithfulness  has  lost  them 

*  See  Chap.  vi. 


288  WHITHER? 

this  advantage,  so  that  the  question  of  sanctification 
has  also  become  a  discussion  that  pervades  more  or  less 
all  denominations.  And  what  more  encouraging  sign 
for  the  future  can  we  have  than  the  study  of  a  holy  life  ? 
This  is  that  which  is  to  bind  the  First  things  and  the 
Last  things  together.  The  Church  has  halted  too  long 
at  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  life,  as  if  our  entire  re- 
demption consisted  in  regeneration,  justification,  simple 
faith,  and  imputed  righteousness.  Is  it  not  high  time 
that  we  should  give  our  attention  to  deeds  of  repent- 
ance, live  as  children  of  God  and  heirs  of  heaven,  pur- 
sue sanctification  and  a  holy  life,  and  aim  at  the  comple- 
tion of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  this  world,  not  only  by 
the  conversion  of  all  men,  but  by  the  sanctification  of 
ourselves  and  others?  The  imputed  righteousness  of 
Christ  ought  to  stimulate  men  to  share  in  the  imparta- 
tion  of  that  righteousness  in  the  grace  of  sanctification ; 
and  if  we  truly  believe  in  Him,  fix  our  hopes  upon  Him 
as  our  Redeemer,  we  should  be  transformed  into  His 
image.  It  is  high  time  that  a  holy  life  of  sanctification 
should  be  the  ideal  life  for  which  every  Christian  should 
strive.  The  error  that  sanctification  cannot  be  accom- 
plished in  this  life  paralyzes  every  effort.*  The  error 
that  sanctification  will  be  immediately  completed  at 
death  as  by  a  magical  act  of  God  encourages  men  to 
sluggishness  in  their  sanctification  in  this  life.f  These 
errors  must  be  banished  from  our  theology  and  our  life, 
the  minds  of  men  must  be  fixed  upon  our  enthroned 
Saviour  as  the  ideal  of  holiness ;  and  if  they  once  learn 
that  their  everlasting  destiny  depends  upon  their  con- 
formity to  the  righteousness  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  it 
is  the  design  of  the  divine  plan  of  redemption  that  they 

'    *  See  p.  148.  t  See  p.  147. 


THITHER.  289 

should  become  Christlike,  they  will  make  this  the  one 
end  and  aim  of  their  lives. 

Inseparably  connected  with  the  doctrine  of  sanctifi 
cation  are  the  doctrines  of  the  heavenly  reign  of  Christ, 
of  the  kingdom  of  God,  of  the  life  in  the  middle  state, 
and  of  the  second  advent,  and  many  other  kindred  doc- 
trines that  need  the  special  attention  of  the  men  of  our 
times.  Now,  these  are  the  questions  in  which  all  the 
Churches  of  Christendom  are  alike  interested,  whither 
every  one  of  them  needs  to  direct  its  attention  in  order 
to  its  own  internal  development.  And  these  are  the 
doctrines  that  will,  when  once  determined,  shed  that 
light  upon  the  questions  of  discord  that  is  so  greatly 
needed  by  all  the  churches,  and  which  will  harmonize 
them  all  in  the  bright  sunlight  of  the  whole  truth  of 
God. 

THE  UNITY  OF  CHRIST'S  CHURCH. 
Christian  Union  has  become  one  of  the  burning  ques- 
tions of  the  day.  Unity  is  a  grand  ideal  of  the  Church 
of  Christ.  The  Church,  built  on  the  rock  against  which 
the  gates  of  Hades  will  not  prevail,  is  one  church.  The 
kingdom  into  whose  gates  the  disciples  are  admitted,  and 
whose  king  is  Christ,  is  and  can  be  but  one  kingdom.* 
Jesus  Christ,  the  true  vine,  is  the  source  of  life  and  fruit- 
fulness  to  all  the  branches.  Without  vital  union  and 
abiding  communion  with  Him  there  is  no  spiritual  life ; 
and  all  the  branches  are,  through  Him,  in  organic  union 
with  one  another,  f  The  good  Shepherd  promised  His 
sheep  that "  they  shall  become  one  flock,  one  shepherd."  $ 
And  accordingly  our  Saviour  prayed  for  His  disciples : 

"  That  they  may  all  be  one ;  even  as  thou,  Father,  art  in  me, 
and  I  in  thee,  that  they  also  may  be  in  us :  that  the  world  may 


*  Matt.  rvi.  18-20.  t  John  xv.  1-8.  f  John  x.  16. 


290  WHITHER  ? 

believe  that  thou  didst  send  me.  And  the  glory  which  thou  hast 
given  me  I  have  given  unto  them ;  that  they  may  be  one,  even 
as  we  are  one :  I  in  them,  and  thou  in  me,  that  they  may  be  per- 
fected in  one."  * 

Our  Saviour  seldom  employs  the  term  church.  He 
ordinarily  employs  the  kingdom,  flock,  and  vine,  the 
familiar  terms  of  the  Old  Testament  prophets.  These 
terms  alike,  indicate  in  their  Old  Testament  usage,  the 
unity  of  the  people  of  God.  They  are  one  people,  one 
congregation,  one  flock,  one  vine,  one  kingdom.  The 
division  of  the  Jewish  nation  was  a  divine  judgment  for 
sin.  The  reunion  of  Israel  and  Judah  is  an  abiding  hope 
of  prophecy,  f  The  apostles  hold  forth  this  same  ideal 
of  the  unity  of  Christ's  Church.  They  do  not  so  often 
use  the  term  kingdom.  There  is  a  tendency  to  use  the 
kingdom  more  with  reference  to  the  kingdom  of  glory 
that  comes  with  the  second  advent,  while  they  use  the 
church  more  frequently  instead  of  the  kingdom  of  re- 
demption. However,  the  epistle  to  the  Colossians  rep- 
resents that  the  heavenly  Father  "  delivered  us  out  of 
the  power  of  darkness,  and  translated  us  into  the  king- 
dom of  the  Son  of  His  love";:}:  and  the  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  teaches  that  Christians  have  received  "  a  king- 
dom that  cannot  be  shaken."  § 

Peter  applies  the  covenant  at  Horeb  to  Christians  as 
an  elect  race,  a  royal  priesthood,  a  holy  nation,  a  people 
for  God's  own  possession ;  and  combines  with  it  the 
figure  of  the  spiritual  house,  the  holy  temple  built  up  of 
living  stones  on  Jesus  Christ,  the  corner-stone. |  He 
also  speaks  of  the  flock  of  God  and  the  chief  shepherd.^" 
The  synonymous  expressions,  people,  royal  priesthood, 

*  John  rvii.  21-33.  t  Briggs'  "  Messianic  Prophecy,"  pp.  165  seq. 

\  Col.  i.  13.  §  Heb.  xii.  27.  1 1  Peter  ii.  4-9.  Hi  Peter  v.  2-4. 


THITHER.  291 

flock,  and  temple  combine  to  represent  the  unity  and 
spirituality  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ. 

The  Apocalypse*  and  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews f 
agree  in  representing  the  body  of  Christians  as  the  city 
of  God,  the  New  Jerusalem.  This  is  also  a  conception 
of  Old  Testament  prophecy.:}:  The  epistle  to  the  He- 
brews uses  the  city  of  God  in  parallelism  with  "  general 
assembly  and  church  of  the  first-born."  § 

Saint  Paul,  in  his  epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  heaps  up 
a  number  of  representations.  Those  who  were  alienated 
from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel  have  been  united  to  it 
by  breaking  down  the  partitioned  wall.  Both  Jew  and 
Gentile  have  been  reconciled  in  one  body  unto  God. 
They  are  fellow-citizens  of  the  saints,  of  the  household  of 
God,  "  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and 
prophets,  Christ  Jesus  Himself  being  the  chief  corner- 
stone ;  in  whom  each  several  building  fitly  framed  to- 
gether, groweth  into  a  holy  temple  in  the  Lord,  in  whom 
ye  also  are  builded  together  for  a  habitation  of  God  in 
the  Spirit."!  Here  the  conceptions  of  kingdom,  house- 
hold, and  temple  combine  with  that  of  body  to  represent 
in  various  ways  and  from  different  points  of  view  the  unity 
and  spirituality,  the  holiness  and  the  vital  energy  of  the 
organized  body  of  Christians.  The  favorite  conception 
of  the  apostle  Paul  is  that  the  church  is  the  body  of 
Christ.  "  We,  who  are  many,  are  one  body  in  Christ, 
and  severally  members  one  of  another."^  "For  as  the 
body  is  one,  and  hath  many  members,  and  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  body,  being  many,  are  one  body,  so  also  is 
Christ.  For  in  one  Spirit  were  we  all  baptized  into  one 
body,  whether  Jews  or  Greeks,  whether  bond  or  free; 

*  xxi.  t  xii.  22,  23.  J  In  Jer.  iii.  14-18 ;  Ezek.  xl.-xlix. ;  Isaiah  Ix. 

§  Hebrews  xii.  22.  |  Eph.  ii.  12-22.  T]  Rom.  xii.  5. 


292  WHITHER  ? 

and  were  all  made  to  drink  of  one  Spirit."  *  The 
heavenly  Father  put  all  things  under  the  feet  of  Christ, 
"  and  gave  him  to  be  the  head  over  all  things  to  the 
church,  which  is  his  body,  the  fulness  of  him  that  filleth 
all  in  all."  f  The  apostle  also  represents  the  relation 
between  Christ  and  His  Church  as  a  marriage  relation. 
"  Christ  also  loved  the  church,  and  gave  himself  up  for 
it ;  that  he  might  sanctify  it,  having  cleansed  it  by  the 
washing  of  water  with  the  word,  that  he  might  present 
the  church  to  himself  a  glorious  church,  not  having  spot 
or  wrinkle  or  any  such  thing ;  but  that  it  should  be  holy 
and  without  blemish."  \ 

All  of  these  conceptions  of  the  apostles  are  synon- 
ymous, and  set  forth  in  various  forms  and  from  different 
points  of  view  the  unique  relation  of  Christ  and  His  dis- 
ciples. They  are  the  kingdom,  He  is  the  king  ;  they  are 
the  city  of  which  He  is  the  light  and  glory ;  they  are  the 
temple,  He  is  the  corner-stone ;  they  are  the  body,  He 
is  the  head  ;  they  are  the  flock,  He  is  the  chief  shep- 
herd ;  they  are  the  people,  He  has  purchased  them  to 
Himself ;  they  are  a  family  of  which  God  is  the  father 
and  He  is  the  elder  brother ;  they  are  the  wife,  He  is 
the  husband.  None  of  these  terms  in  their  Biblical 
usage  will  allow  us  to  think  of  more  than  one  organiza- 
tion, or  of  any  other  principle  of  organization  than  the 
life  and  love  of  Jesus  Christ.§ 

The  unity  of  Christ's  Church  is  in  Christ,  the  head, 
the  king,  and  it  can  be  found  in  no  other  person.  It  is 
centred  at  the  throne  of  Christ,  at  the  right  hand  of  the 


*  i  Cor.  xii.  12,  13.  f  Eph.  i.  22,  23 ;  see  also  CoL  i.  18. 

J  Eph.  v.  25-27. 

§  "Alle  diese  Begriffe  sind  so  geartet  dass  sie  die  Vorstellung  mekrerer 
Kirchen  Christi  schlechterdings  ausschliessen  "  (Julius  Muller,  Die  evang.  Union, 
p.  28.  Berlin,  1854). 


THITHER.  293 

Father  in  heaven  ;  it  cannot  be  in  any  place  on  earth. 
The  kingdom  is  composed  of  all  who  are  united  to 
Christ,  in  all  ages  from  the  beginning  of  the  world  until 
the  close  of  this  dispensation.  It  embraces  the  patri- 
archs, the  prophets,  the  apostles  and  martyrs,  the  fathers 
and  theologians,  the  saints  and  heroes  of  the  Church  in 
all  epochs  ;  from  all  lands  multitudes  innumerable  gath- 
ered about  the  throne  of  God  and  the  Lamb.  The  Scrip- 
tures give  several  glimpses  of  this  Church  of  Christ.* 
The  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  is  therefore  chiefly  in  heaven, 
where  He  is.  The  Church  on  earth  is  but  the  vestibule, 
the  outer  court  of  the  heavenly  temple.f  If  all  Chris- 
tians in  the  world  could  be  assembled  in  one  vast  multi- 
tude, they  would  be  a  small  company  compared  with  the 
multitude  about  the  heavenly  throne.  The  visible  Church 
prior  to  the  Reformation  had  merged  the  invisible  Church 
on  earth  in  itself.  The  Reformation  revived  the  Biblical 
doctrines  of  the  universal  priesthood  of  believers  and 
immediate  access  to  the  throne  of  Christ  by  faith  ;  and 
thus  made  the  distinction  between  the  visible  and  the 
invisible  Church  one  of  the  characteristic  features  of 
Protestantism.  The  Reformers  did  not  teach  that  there 
were  two  Churches,  but  that  the  one  Church  was  in 
great  part  invisible,  and  in  some  part  visible  here  on 
earth,  in  accordance  with  the  external  conformity  of 
Christians  to  the  doctrines  and  institutions  of  Christ  Him- 
self. This  distinction  between  the  visible  and  invisible 
Church  has  been  denied  in  recent  times  by  Rothe  and  oth- 
ers ;  but  it  has  been  reaffirmed  by  Julius  Miiller,^:  Dorner, 
and  other  chief  divines  of  the  Protestant  Churches. 


*  Rev.  vii.  9,  seq.  ;  xix.  6,  seq. ;  Heb  xii.  23.  t  Rev.  xi.  2,  seq. 

\  "  Und  gewiss,  so  lange  die  evangelische  Kirche  auf  dem  Grunde  des  gott- 
lichen  Wortes  verharren  wird,  so  lange  wird  es  ihr  formell  und  materiell  unmog- 
lich  sein  sich  von  der  Idee  der  unsichtbaren  Kirche  loszusagen  "  (Muller,  Dog- 
matische  Abhandlungen.  Bremen,  1870,  p.  402) 


294:  WHITHER? 

The  historical  Church  has  too  often  committed  the  sin 
of  exaggerating  its  own  importance  over  against  the 
vastly  greater,  more  extensive,  and  holier  Church  that  is 
gathered  about  the  throne  of  Christ  composed  of  all 
those,  wherever  they  may  be,  who  are  in  vital  union  and 
communion  with  Him.  The  Church  in  this  world  is 
visible  in  a  considerable  number  of  ecclesiastical  organ- 
izations. It  is  sinful  pride  and  arrogance  for  any  one  of 
them  to  claim  the  exclusive  rights  and  privileges  of  the 
visible  Church  of  Christ.*  It  is  easy  to  see  that  no  one 
of  them  can  be  identified  with  the  Church  on  earth  ;  for 
no  one  of  them  embraces  all  true  Christians,  and  no  one 
of  them  is  so  pure  that  it  contains  none  but  Christians. 
Furthermore,  if  all  the  churches  on  earth  could  be  com- 
bined in  one  ecclesiastical  organization  they  could  not 
be  identified  with  the  Church  of  Christ ;  for  they  would 
still  leave  outside  their  pale  multitudes  of  real  Chris- 
tians ;  that  is,  vast  numbers  of  unbaptized  children,  who 
are  the  elect  of  God  and  belong  to  the  Church  of  the 
redeemed  ;  and  large  numbers  from  among  the  heathen 
who  have  never  had  an  opportunity  of  attaching  them- 
selves to  any  form  of  the  visible  Church.  And,  on  the 
other  hand,  all  the  churches  contain  not  a  few  hypo- 
crites, who  are  not  real  Christians  at  all.  The  visible 
Church  is,  at  the  best,  a  poor  and  faint  reflection  of  the 
ideal  Church.  The  holy  and  undefiled  bride  of  the  Lamb 
is  not  on  earth,  but  in  heaven,  where  He  is.  The  Church 
on  earth  is  defiled  with  sin,  error,  and  imperfection  of 
every  kind.  It  is  the  work  of  redemption,  very  largely, 


*  "  Nur  Sunde  und  zwar  gehaufte  Sflnde  kann  die  Eine  Kirche  in  ihrer 
Erscheinung  in  eine  Vielheit  von  Kirchen  zerspalten,  welche  die  positive  Geme- 
inschaft  mil  einander  aufgeben,  und  immer  sind  Kirchenspaltungen  schwere 
Gerichte  fiber  die  erscheinende  Kirche"  (Corner,  Giaubenslehre,  II.,  pp.  913, 
914). 


THITHER.  295 

to  cleanse  the  historical  and  visible  forms  of  Christi- 
anity. 

The  ideal  of  the  Church  is  visible  unity,  but  the  visi- 
ble Church  cannot  entirely  attain  its  ideal  until  its  com- 
pletion in  Jesus  Christ.  Before  the  Second  Advent  the 
visible  will  correspond  with  the  invisible  only  in  part. 
It  will  grow  nearer  the  goal,  but  will  not  altogether 
reach  it. 

Notwithstanding  the  external  discord  in  the  Church, 
there  is  vastly  greater  external  unity  than  is  generally 
supposed  to  be  the  case.  The  most  essential  things  in 
the  Christian  religion,  the  real  fundamentals,  are  the 
common  property  of  all  the  ecclesiastical  organizations 
of  Christendom. 

Archbishop  Ussher  well  says  : 

"  Thus  if  at  this  day  we  should  take  a  survey  of  the  several 
professions  of  Christianity,  that  have  any  large  spread  in  any 
part  of  the  world  ....  and  should  put  by  the  points  wherein 
they  did  differ  one  from  another,  and  gather  into  one  body  the 
rest  of  the  Articles  wherein  they  all  did  generally  agree,  we 
should  find  that  in  those  propositions,  which  without  all  contro- 
versie  are  universally  received  in  the  whole  Christian  world,  so 
much  truth  is  contained,  as  being  joyned  with  holy  obedience, 
may  be  sufficient  to  bring  a  man  unto  everlasting  salvation."  * 

All  Christians  hold  to  the  sacred  Scriptures  as  the  in- 
spired word  of  God  to  guide  the  Church  in  religion,  doc- 
trine, and  morals.  The  Apostles'  Creed  is  the  symbol 
of  the  universal  Church.  Christians  of  every  name  enter 
the  visible  Church  by  the  sacrament  of  baptism  and  par- 
take of  the  Supper  of  the  Lord,  whatever  may  be  their 
views  of  the  meaning  of  these  sacraments.  They  all 
engage  in  the  worship  of  God  on  the  Lord's  day.  They 
all  use  the  Lord's  Prayer  as  a  guide  to  their  devotions. 

*  Ussher's  "  A  Brief  Declaration  of  the  UniversalitSe  of  the  Church.    A  Ser- 
mon before  the  King,"  1624,  p.  28. 


296  WHITHER  ? 

Their  worship  has  essentially  the  same  substance,  how- 
ever  varied  may  be  its  forms  of  expression.  The  Ten 
Commandments  and  Christ's  law  of  love  are  the  uni- 
versal laws  of  Christian  morals.  Now,  these  are  the  great 
verities  of  the  Christian  religion.  They  are  vastly  more 
important  than  those  other  things  about  which  the 
Churches  of  Christendom  differ,  and  concerning  which 
there  is  strife  and  discord.  The  calm  and  abiding  con- 
cord of  Christendom  is  vastly  more  profound  than  the 
noisy  and  superficial  discord. 

WORLD-WIDE  CONFLICT. 

In  all  these  questions  of  the  times  the  Westminster 
Confession  is  in  advance  of  the  Presbyterian  and  Con- 
gregational Churches  and  points  the  way  of  progress. 
The  Church  ought  to  be  in  advance  of  the  Confession. 
But  the  Confession  is  in  advance  of  the  Church,  so  that 
the  children  of  the  Puritans  must  first  advance  to  the 
high  mark  of  their  own  standards  before  they  can  go 
beyond  them  into  the  higher  reaches  of  Christian  the- 
ology. 

The  old  questions  that  divide  the  Churches  are  giving 
way  to  these  new  questions,  and  the  divisions  of  theo- 
logians are  on  lines  that  cross  the  barriers  of  the  denom- 
inations. The  sectarian  divisions  are  becoming  merged 
in  the  vastly  greater  and  more  important  conflict  be- 
tween the  conservatives  and  the  progressives  in  all  the 
Churches. 

Here  is  the  world-wide  conflict  which  is  now  upon  us, 
that  will  make  questions  of  theology  the  most  important 
of  all  questions,  for  the  people  as  well  as  for  the  minis- 
try; that  will  exalt  theology  to  her  throne  as  the  queen 
of  science;  and  that  will  advance  the  religion  of  our 
Saviour  in  a  new  reformation  that  will  conquer  the 


THITHER.  297 

world  for  Christ,  consecrate  it,  sanctify  it,  and  prepare  it 
for  His  advent  in  glory.  Such  a  world-wide  conflict 
will  give  us  the  unity  for  which  Christendom  yearns. 

"  By  and  by,  men  will  be  looking  back  and  wondering  at  us 
Christians  in  these  last  years  of  the  nineteenth  century,  that  we 
so  poorly  understood  the  Gospel,  overlaying  it,  some  of  us  with 
ritual,  others  with  dogma.  Lament  it,  my  brethren.  We  have 
much  to  be  ashamed  of.  But  let  not  your  heart  be  troubled. 
More  Pentecosts  than  one  have  come  already.  And  more  are  yet 
to  come,  with  rushing  pinions  and  tongues  of  flame."  * 

True  unity  is  to  be  attained  by  conserving  all  that  is 
good  in  the  past  achievements  of  the  Church,  and  by  ad- 
vancing to  still  higher  attainments.  The  Holy  Spirit 
will  guide  the  Church  and  the  Christian  scholar  in  the 
present  and  the  future  as  He  has  in  the  past.  The 
Creeds  give  us  what  has  already  been  attained.  We  take 
our  stand  on  them  and  build  higher.  Progress  is  possi- 
ble only  by  research,  discussion,  and  conflict.  The  more 
conflict  the  better.  Battle  for  the  truth  is  infinitely 
better  than  stagnation  in  error.  Every  error  should  be 
slain  as  soon  as  possible.  If  it  be  our  error  we  should 
be  the  most  anxious  to  get  rid  of  it.  Error  is  our 
greatest  foe.  Truth  is  the  most  precious  possession. 
There  can  be  no  unity  save  in  the  truth,  and  no  perfect 
unity  save  in  the  whole  truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth. 
Let  us  unite  in  the  truth  already  gained  and  agree  to 
contend  in  Christian  love  and  chivalry  for  the  truth  that 
has  not  yet  been  sufficiently  determined,  having  faith 
that  in  due  time  the  Divine  Spirit  will  make  all  things 
clear  to  us. 

Christian  churches  should  go  right  on  in  the  lines 
drawn  by  their  own  history  and  their  own  symbols  ; 
this  will  in  the  end  lead  to  greater  heights,  on  which 

*  R.  D.  Hitchcock,  "  Eternal  Atonement,"  p.  300. 


298  WHITHER  ? 

there  will  be  concord.  Imperfect  statements  will  be 
corrected  by  progress.  All  forms  of  error  will  disappear 
before  the  breath  of  truth.  We  are  not  to  tear  down 
what  has  cost  our  fathers  so  much.  We  are  rather  to 
strengthen  the  foundations  and  buttress  the  buildings 
as  we  build  higher.  Let  the  light  shine,  higher  and 
higher,  the  clear,  bright  light  of  day.  Truth  fears  no 
light.  Light  chases  error  away.  True  orthodoxy  seeks 
the  full  blaze  of  the  noontide  sun.  In  the  light  of  such 
a  day  the  unity  of  Christendom  will  be  gained. 


INDEX. 


ADOPTING  ACT 29 

Adoption 142,  144 

Alexander,  Archibald. 77,  78,  79,  81,  132, 133 

Allen,  A.  V.  G 113 

Alliances  and  Federal  Unions 261 

Alsted,  John  Henry 202,  205 

Amyraut,  Christopher 103 

Anabaptists 23,185,201 

Andover  theory 220 

Anonymes 86 

Anthropology 107 

Antichrist 173,  184,  185,  228 

Apocryphal  books 75,  80,  82 

Apostles'  Creed 19,  58,  59,  96,  208, 

262,  269,  275,  286 

Aquinas 21 

Archer,  John 205,  214 

Arminianism 99,  197,  241,  242 

Arrowsmith,  John 103, 104,  123 

Aspinwall,  William 214 

Assurance  of  Grace 142,  157 

Atonement 112,  115 

Augustine 2t 

Authenticity 89 

Authenticit  v  and  Canonicity Si^f. 

Authority  of  Scripture 73 

BAKEWELI.,  THOMAS 214 

Ball.  John 68,  144,  149 

Baptism 1 19,  180,  255,  262,  264 

Baptismal  Regeneration 180 

Baptist  Confession,  1645—6 214 

B.-iptist  intolerance 255 

Baxter,  Richard. .  71,  227,  235,  239, 

Baylie,  Robert 123,  124,  205, 

Belgian  Confession 

Benediction,  Apostolic 251 

Bergius,  I  ohn 258,  265 

Bible  (Sacred  Scriptures).  .9  ff..  15,  262,  264 
Bible  does  not  decide  all  questions. . .  10-1 1 

Bible,  Kxternal  authority  of 281 

Biblical  Criticism 63,  68,  71,  73,  277 

Biblical  Theology 12,  245,  284 

Book  of  Church  Order 31,  33,  34 

Book  of  Discipline  31 

Book  of  Common  Prayer. .  180,  235,  253,  265 

Briggs,  Charles  A 12,  23,  29,  30,  43, 

53.  72>  75,  84*  88,  94,  153,  161,  178, 

246,  248,  249,  259,  264,  290 


241 
247.  254 
213,  214 
. . . .  74 


Brightman,  Thomas.. 

Brookes,  James  H 

Brownists 

Bruce,  A.  B 

Burgess,  Anthony 

Cornelius. 


202,  203 


.........   185 

.......       "4 

.........    122 

.123,  124,  180 

.205,  213,  234 


Burroughs,  Jeremiah... 

Butler,  Joseph 217 

CALAMY,  EDMUND 102,  103,  216,  241 

Calvin.  John 69,  76,88,138 

Calvinism 100,  150,  153,  241,  242,  244 

Candlish,  Robert  S 143,  144,  145 

Canon  of  Scripture. ..75,  77,  78,  80,  82,  83,  84 

Canonicity 83,  89 

Canons  of  Dort 97,101,103 

Canons  of  the  Episcopal  Church 265 

Capel,  Richard 67 

Carter,  William 128 

Cartwright,  Thomas 39 

Caryl.  Joseph 214 

Cathedral  establishments 42 

Chiliasts,  or  Millenaries... 201,  203,  205,  213 

Chillendon,  Edmund 185 

Christ,  Person  and  Work  of 112 

Christian  I  .iberty 159 

Christian  Orthodoxy 19 

Christian  Union 226^". ,  289 

Christian  Unity 168 

Christian  Year 56 

Christianity,  Great  verities  of. 29S/'. 

Christophanies 279 

Church,  Doctrine  of  the 173 

164 
'75 
'75 


Church  and  State. 

Church  Censures 

Church  Government 

Church  of  Christ 

Church  of  England 48,  79,  236,  248, 

249,  250, 

Civil  Declarations 

Civil  Magistrate 


Classis. 

Close  Communion 

Collection 

Common  Prayer 251, 

Congreeational  Government 

Congregationalism 

Consensus  of  Christendom 226, 

Consensus  of  Reformed  Confessions 

Conservatism 

(299) 


262 
164 
164 
46 

255 

49 
253 
229 
236 
268 
261 


300 


INDEX. 


Contemporary  H  istory  of  Bible 284 

Conviction  of  Sin 153 

Craven,  E.  R 17? 

Crawford,  Thomas  J 143,  144,  145,  190 

Creation 105 

Credibility 72 

Criticism 278 

Crosby,  Howard 98,  in,  112,  114,  115 

Culverwell,  Nathaniel 129,  131 

Cumberland  Presbyterian  Church 242 

Cunningham,  William 190 

DABNEY.  ROBERT  L..IOO,  no,  144,  151,  190 

Damnation  of  Infants 121 

Davcnant,  John..  103,  104,  192,240,244,245 

Deacon 251 

Decree,  The  Divine 97^- 

Denominational  barriers 4,  266 

Denominations 166,  194,  258 /. 

Development,  Doctrine  of 105,  106 

Dick.  '1  homas 144 

Dickinson,  Jonathan 29 

Directory  of  Worship 31,  33,  49,  50, 

5',  52.  53.  54,  55.  56,  57. 59.  *6«i  l8°, 

192,  251 

Dissensus  of  Christendom 226,  273 

Divine  Right  of  Church  Government.. 226^". 

D  vinity  of  Christ 114 

Divorce 172 

Doctor  or  Teacher 38,39,41,47 

Doctrine,  Variety  of 247 

Doctrines,  New 276^". 

Doctrines,  Three  classes 267 

Dogmatic  Theology 18,  0,1,  245 

Dorner,  Isaac  A 69,  91, 94,  114,  173, 

198,  211,  218,  293,  294 
Downing,  Calybute 247 

ECCLESIASTICAL  BODIES 232 

Editors  as  Teaching  Elders. 36 

Edwards,  Jonathan 153 

Thomas 214 

Effectual  Calling 118,  130 

Elders 47,931 

"  F.lect  Infants" \*\ff.,  135 

Eliot,  John 53 

Episcopal  Government 229 

Episcopate,  H  istoric 237,  262,  264 

Errors  in  present  text  of  Bible 68,  72 

Eschatology 195,222 

Established  National  Church,  An 166 

Eternal  Justification 131 

Ethical  development 108,  156 

Ethics 287 

Evangelical  Alliance »6i 

Evangelists 3,  34,  36,  39,  47,  48 

Evangelization  of  the  masses a 

Evidence  for  divine  authority  of  Scrip- 

.  ture 75 

Evidences  from  Miracles  and  Prophecy.  279 
Exaltation  of  Christ 116 

FAITH 134.  '47. 148,  «49 

Fasting 56 

Fatherhood  of  God 143, 144,  145 

Featley,  Edward 214 

Federal  Unions 261 

Fifth-Monarchy  men 214 


Finch,  Henry 

Foreign  M  issions 

Foreknowledge  , 


*oa 

4 


Foregiveness  of  Sin  ..........  95,  96,  \yjjtf. 

Form  of  Government.  .24,  30,  33,  38,  44, 

57.  59.  176 
Formula  Concordiee  ..................     89 

Freedom  of  Worship  ...................  168 

Future  Life  ..........................  285 

GALLICAN  CONFESSION  ..........  74,  77,  78 

Gall  us  of  Leiden  ......................  202 

Gataker,  Thomas  .............  131,  215,  247 

General  A  ssembly  ...............  45,  46,  233 

General  Assembly  of  1790  ..........  181,  184 

"  1835  ......         ....   186 

"  "         "  1845(0.  S.)  .......   186 

"  1879  ...............  188 

Gillespie,  George  ..................  102,  215 

God,  The  Living  .....................  93^. 

Good  Works..  ..............  142,  152.  154  jf. 

Goodwin,  Thomas  .................  205,  213 

Gospels  ...........................  &4S- 

Gouge,  William.  ..89,  102,  203,  204,  205, 

•\  206,  215 

Gower,  Stanley  .......................  215 

Grace  of  God  .........................    94 

Growth  in  Saving  Faith  ...............  150 

HARRIS,  ROBERT  ..................  103,  145 

Heard,  John  B  ........................   145 

Heathen  .....  _    .  .118,  120,  122,  129,  220,  286 

Hebrews,  Epistle  to  the  ..............  .     85 

Heidelberg  Catechism  .................  260 

Herle,  Charles  .....................  76,  123 

Heterodoxy  ..............  8,  15,  163,  266 

Higher  Criticism.  .81,  83,  84,  86,  88,  89, 

»5C,  283 
Hill,  George  ........................  144 

Thomas 


Historical  Criticism  ...................     80 

Hitchcock,  Roswell  D.  .......  272,  277,  297 

Hodge,  A.  A..  .64,  68,  60,  81,  83,  84,  86, 
03.  94,  95,  <>6,  98,  99.  "°.  '34,  »39, 
M°.  M»,  '48,  15°,  155,  »75,  178,  103, 

199.  2o8,  209,  2IO 

Hodge,  Charles    81,  82,  86/92,  96,  107, 
Il6>  '33,  '36i  138.  142,  148,  151,  155,  158, 
187 
Holy-Days  .........................     56 

Holy  Life  ...........  .  ................  287 

...  214 
...     79 
80 
Humiliation  of  Christ  ...............  114 

Hymns  ...........................  50,252 

TNC*PABLRS  ..................  nq,  131,  134 

Immediate  Sanctification  .....  147,  210,  286 

Immersion  ..........................  255 

Inability.  Human  ................   logJK 

-  ,  Moral  ............................  no 

Incarnation  .........................  H2y. 

Inerrancy  .......................  64,  68,  oo 

Infant  Baptism  .......................   126 

Infant  Salvation  ...................  no,  i?5 

Inspiration  ..................  72,  73,  75,  89 

I  nternal  Evidence  of  Scripture  ........  280 


Homes,  Nathaniel 

Huet.  P.  D 

Human  Evidence. 


INDEX. 


301 


Interpretation,  Improper  methods 246 

Irish  Articles 101,  181,  215 

ANSENISTS 228 

ohnson,  Francis 185 

udgment  at  Death..  _.    ..195,  212,  216,  286 

udgment,  Kinal  public.. 198,212 

udgment  in  Eden 196 

_  ure  Divino  Church  Government. ..   iTSJf. 

Justice  of  God 94 

Justification  by  Faith  alone 63,  134, 

!37>  142.  ^z.  153,  199 

KENOSIS 114 

Kostlin.  Julius 138 

LAMBERT,  FRANCIS 201 

Lambeth  Conference 262 

Lange,  f.  P 69 

Law  of  God 143,  158^". 

Lay- Evangelists 35 

Lighttoot,  J<  hn 215 

Literary  Criticism 282 

Liturgical  Books 250 _/".,  254 

Liturgy 24 

Logia  of  Matthews's  Gospel 85 

Lord's  Prayer 52,  58,  59,  205,  269,  270 

Lord's  Supper 48,  176,  180,  181,  190, 

191,  257,  262,  264,  270 

Love  of  God 94.X 

Luther,  Martin 69,87,  138,  152,281 

Lyford,  William 66 

MAKEMIE,  FRANCIS 43,  249 

Man,  Doctrine  of 107  Jf. 

Manton,  Robert 214 

Marriage  and  Divorce 171 

Marrow  Men 153 

Marshall,  Stephen...  103,  126,  127,  183, 

203,  205,  206,  231 

Martensen,  H.  L 91 

Masoretic  text  282 

Meade,  William 133 

Means  of  Grace 119 

Mede,  Joseph 205 

Mediator.  The 112 

Meldenius,  Rupertus 276 

Mercy  of  God 96.X 

Messiah 206 

Methodism 153 

Methodist  Episcopal  Church .  . .  242 

Middle  State..  137, 147, 196,199,206^"., 

218,  220,  222,  286 

Mil'ennium 200 

Ministry,  American  system 40-42 

Ministry,  Doctrine  of  the y$ff- 

Mjnistry  of  the  Word 119 

M  iracles 279 

Mitchell,  A.  F 89,  101,  103,  145,  181 

Monogamy 171 

Monsell.R.W in 

Moore,  W.  F, 182 

Moral  Government  of  God 218 

Moral  liberty  of  men 99 

Morals 271 

Morris.  E.  D 112,  116,  117,  218,  219 

Miiller,  Julius 292,  293 

Musical  Instruments 252 


NATIONAL  RELIGION,  A 167, 168 

Natural  Ability no 

Natural  Light  122 

N  eander,  A 69 

Newcommen,  Matthew 123 

Nicene  Creed .262,  264,  275 

OATHS  AND  Vows 161 

Officers  of  the  Church 176,  177 

Old  Catholics 228 

Order  of  Salvation 139,  147 

Order  of  Worship 49 

Ordinances,  Validity  of. 182 

Ordination ..185,  189,  230 

Original  Righteousness 107 

Original  Sin 108,196 

Orthodoxism 7,  90,  141,  162,  163 

Orthodoxy 6,  266,  267 

PAGET,  EPHRIAM...  ..  214 


Palmer,  Herbert 25,  26,  86,  183,  203, 

205,  206,  246 

Papacy 185,  228 

Pastors 37,  47,  230 

Patton,  Francis  L 68,  76,  77 

Pentateuch 85 

Permission  of  M  an's  Fall ....   102 

Perseverance  of  Saints 157 

Petrie,  Alexander 214 

Piscator.  John 202,  205 

Plenary  Inspiration 66 

Pneumatophanies 279 

Poole.  Matthew 66 

Pope  of  Rome 173,  184 

Prayer,  Order  of  topics S*ff- 

Prayer  books 253 

Premillenarianism 203,  204,  21  \Jjf. 

Premillenaria 


J73 

Prentiss.  George  L 136,  219,  221 

Presbyter- Bishop 230,  238 

Presbyterian  (  hurch  (English) 107 

Presbyterian  Church  (North)... 31,  154, 

164,  172,  242 
Presbyterian  Church  (South). . .  31,  33, 

35-  36.  37,  38,  106,  154,  164,  172,  242 

Presbyterian  Government ^229 

Presbyterianism JU^ 

Presby tenanism  of  A  merica 43 

Presbyterianism.  jure  divino 175 

Presbytery 43,  45,  46,  47,  *77i  «33 

Presbytery  of  1706. 43 

Preterition 104 

Priesthood  of  Christ 117 

Probation 2I7^r- 

Progress 258,  266,  275,  297 

Progressive  Orthodoxy 8.  16 

Progressive  Sanctification 210 

Proof-Texts 25,  31,  37,  95 

Prophecy.  Predictive 279 

Proposals  for  Reunion 262 

Protestant  Episcopal  Church. .  164,  238, 

254,  262,  263 

Protestantism 20,  239,  269 

Protestantism,  Essentials  of 240 

Provincial  Assembly  of  London,  1647. 

46,  177,  178,  183.  2ir,  234 

Psalm-Book  and  Paraphrases 251 

Psalter 51,  252 


302 


INDEX. 


Pseudonymes 86 

P>ychology,  Changes  in >O7/. 

Purgatory ..    .    306,209 

Puritan  Reformation 22,  152 

Puritanism 141,  142,  150,  151,  161,  243 

Puritans 349 

REAL  PRESENCE 180,  190  ^ 

Redemption  of  Elect  only .   103 

Redemption,  Work  of. 113,  118 

Kef.irmation 12,  74,  141.  '52,  228 

Reformation,  Three  principles  of  the..     63 

Reformed  Church 259 

Reformers 87,  88,  185,  268,  280 

Regeneration 118 

Religion,   Present   unsatisfactory  state 

of i 

Religion  and  Morals 58 If. 

Religious  Equality 168 

Repentance  unto  Life. ..148,  isi/.,  152,  287 

Reprobation  loo/.,  10-5,  104 

Resurrection 212,  216 

Revision  of  Standards  . . .  .y>jf.,  58,  98,  277 

Reynolds,  Edward 26,  102,  103,  123 

Roberts,  Francis 144 

Roman  Catholic  Baptism i%i_ff".,  270 

Roman  Catholic  Church. .  .73,  167,  168, 

169,  184,  186,  188,  201,  226,  268 .y.,  280 

Ross,  Alexander 214 

Rothe,  Richard 293 

Rule  of  Faith 246 

Ruling  Klders 36,  332 

Rutherford,  Samuel.. .70,  71,  76,  78,  81, 

96,  102,  124,  149,  214 

SABBATH 161,  271 

Sacraments 179,  180,  255 

Sacrifices,  Symbolism  of  O.  T 1 15-6 

Saltmarsh.  John 131 

Salvation  by  grace  alone 63,  100 

"Same  Decree" 101 

Sanctification . . .    .142,  146^".,  152,  153, 

157,  198,  199,  287^". 

Satisfaction  of  Christ 115 

Saving  Faith.   142,148,149^". 

Savoy  Conference,  1660-61   249 

Schaff,  Philip 190 

Schleiermacher,  Friedr 60 

Science  and  Creation 105 

Scotch  Comm'rs  to  Westm.  Assem. .  14, 

23,25,  123 

Scottish  Books  of  Discipline 39 

Scriptures,  Reading  of 251 

Scriptures,  Sole  authority  of  the 63 

Scriptures  in  Worship 55 

Seaman.  I.azarus 102,  103,  185,  215 

Second  Advent 54,206,213,316 

Second  Helvetic  Confession 74 

Sense  of  Scripture 89 

Sermon 49,251 

Sermon  on  the  Mount 269,  271 

Sessions 45,  46 

Shedd,  William  G.  T. . . .  107,  139,  197,  209 

Simon.  D.  W 138 

Simpson,  Prof.  Sydrach i-?5 

Sin 108^". 

Singing  of  Psalms  in  worship 50 


Slavery 154 

Smith,  Henry  B..59,  no,  113,  116,  188,  243 

Solemn  League  and  Covenant 24 

Song.  Sacred. 251,  252 

Sonship  of  Helievers 143,  159 

Sovereignty  of  God 98,  100 

Speculation 91 

Standard  of  orthodoxy 7-8 

Standards.  Change  of  attitude  to 27^"- 

Staupitz,  John 153,  1 56 

Stier,  R 69 

Subscription 28/".,  239,  276 

Substitution 115 

Symbolics 21,  245,  275 

Symbols  of  Faith 19M- 

Synod  of  Dort 241 

Synod  of  1 788 . .  30,  3 1 ,  33,  36,  37,  38,  39, 

53.  56.  57,  58,  165,  166,  168,  169 

Synods 45,  169,  178,  233 

Synods,  Early  American 44 

Synods  and  Councils 1 75 

TAYLOR,  THOMAS 125 

Teacher,  see  also  Doctor . .     38 

Temple,  Thomas     26 


Ten  commands — 58,  59,  129,  158,  159, 

172,  269,  271 
Testimony  of  the  Ancient  Church..  64, 

74,  90 

Textual  Criticism 282 

Theological  Systems 245 

Theology.  Construction  of. 13 

Theophanies 279 

XXXIX  Articles 24,  26,  74,  79,  80, 

160,  215,  225,  242 

Tholuck,  A 69 

Thoughts  and  Words 65 

Tischendorf.  Constantin 282 

Tombes,  John 127,  183 

Total  Abstinence 155,  162,  192 

Total  Depravity 108 

Traditionalism..  9,  17,  21,  91,  162.  163, 

195,  258  ff. 

Translations 65,66 

Tuckney,  Anthony.. 25,  27,  28,  59,129. 

131,203,  205,  206,  215 

Turretme,  Francis 21,  138,  144, 223 

Twisse,  William 125,  205,  213,  215 

ULTIMATE  CHRISTIANITY 16 

Uniformity  of  Worship 248 

Union,  Basis  of 230 

Union  by  Federation 237 

Unity  of  the  Church 1*7.  168,  227,  289 

Universal  Salvation  of  Infants 133, 

136,  137,  221,  286 
Usshcr,  James 229,  235,  264,  295 

VAN  DYKE,  HENRY  J 19° 

Van  Oosterzee.  O.  0 69,  it 6 

Verbal  Inspiration 64,  90,  282 

Vines,  Richard 67,  103 

Visible  Church 293/- 

Visible  Church,  Unity  of. 174 

Vows 16' 


WALLIS,  JOHN 27,  68,  134 


INDEX. 


303 


Warfield,  B.  B. ..  64,  68,  69,  72,  86,  87,  107 

Wesley,  John 211,  342 

Westcott  and  Hort 282 

Westminster  Assembly v$ff-i  I22» 

123,  127,  176,  178,  185,  201,  225,  231 

Divines. .  .23,  36,  37,  38,  46,  47,  56, 

57)  59-  79i  8l>  82*  88,  94,  98,  99,  101, 
103,  105,  106,  108,  1 18, 119,  120, 130, 
134,  136,  145,  156,  160,161,  165,169, 
171,  175,  185,  189,  192,200,203,205, 

2O6,  2IO,  213,   214,   015,    225,  246,  264 

— —  Catechism,  Larger.. 25,  26,  27,  28, 
31.  33-  59)  I07>  1Q3>  "2,  114,  115, 
121,  129,  156,  158,  159,  180,  183, 195, 

205,  206,  209,  212 

Catechism,  Shorter.  .25,  27,  28, 31, 

33,  59,  60,  120,  195,  206 

— —  Confession.  ...21,  25,  26,  31,  33,  56, 
59.  63,  75.  82,  91,  94,  95,  96,  98,  99, 
101,  103,  106,  107,  in,  112.  117,119, 
120,  121,  123,  131,  132,  134,  135, 140, 
»4*i  M2»  M4,  M7.  M8,  i~49  '5°.  151, 
I54i  *55i  I57i  I58>  J59i  X6°»  X6i»  162, 


163,  164,  165, 172,  174,  176, 170,  181, 
182,  183,  186,  193, 195, 199,  206,  208, 
212,  216,  217,  218,  219, 220,  223,  260, 

274,  296 
Symbols  and  Standards. . .  .20,  22, 

23^M  27,    30,    32,    58,  78,  89,  90,  92, 

95i  97)  98»  ioo,  107,  108,  109,  no, 
115,  116,  117,  134,  135, 139,  140,  144, 
145,  156,  182,  185,  187,189,201,216, 

223,  225,  242,  264,  274,  277,  287 

Whichcote,  Benj 28 

Whitaker,  Jeremiah 102 

Whitby.  Daniel 201,  206,  217 

Wilkinson,  Henry 214 

Woodcock,  Francis 213,  213 

Wording  of  the  Confession 123 

Works  of  Supererogation 156 

Worship 60,  161,  270 

Worship,  Presbyterian 48^- 

Worship,  Uniformity  of 348 

ZWINCLI,  ULRICH 118, 112 


Messianic  Prophecy. 

The  Prediction  of  the  fulfilment  of  Redemption  through  the 
Messiah.  A  critical  study  of  the  Messianic  passages  of  the  Old 
Testament  in  the  order  of  their  development.  By  CHARLES 
A.  BRIGGS,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew  and  the  Cognate  Langu- 
ages in  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York.  One  volume, 
crown  octavo,  $2.50. 

"  Messianic  Prophecy  is  a  subject  of  no  common  interest,  and  this  book  is  no  ordin- 
ary book.  It  is,  on  the  contrary,  a  work  of  the  very  first  order,  the  ripe  product  of 
years  of  study  upon  the  highest  themes.  It  is  exegesis  in  master-hand,  about  its 

noblest  business It  has  been  worth  while  to  commend  this  book  at  some 

length  to  the  attention  of  Bible  students,  because  both  the  subject  and  the  treatment 
entitle  it  to  rank  among  the  very  foremost  works  of  the  generation  in  the  department 
of  Exegetical  Theology.  Union  Seminary  is  to  be  congratulated  that  it  is  one  of  her 
Professors  who,  in  a  noble  line  of  succession  has  produced  it.  The  American  Church 
is  to  be  congratulated  that  the  author  is  an  American,  and  Presbyterians  that  he  is  a 
Presbyterian.  A  Church  that  can  yield  such  books  has  large  possibilities." — New 
York  Evangelist. 

"It  is  second  in  importance  to  no  theological  work  which  has  appeared  in  this 
country  during  the  present  century." — The  Critic. 

"His  arduous  labor  has  been  well  expended,  for  he  has  finally  produced  a  book 
which  will  give  great  pleasure  to  Christians  of  all  denominations The  pro- 
found learning  displayed  in  the  book  commends  it  to  the  purchase  of  all  clergymen 
who  wish  for  the  most  critical  and  exact  exposition  of  a  difficult  theme ;  while  its 
earnestness  and  eloquence  will  win  for  it  a  place  in  the  library  of  every  devout  lay- 
man."—^. Y.  Journal  of  Commerce. 

"  It  is  rich  with  the  fruits  of  years  of  zealous  and  unwearied  study,  and  of  an  ample 
learning.  In  it  we  have  the  first  English  work  on  Messianic  Prophecy  which  stands 
on  the  level  of  modern  Biblical  studies,  It  is  one  of  the  most  important  and  valuable 
contributions  of  American  scholarships  to  those  studies.  It  is  always  more  than  in- 
structive :  it  is  spiritually  helpful.  We  commend  the  work  not  only  to  ministers,  but 
to  intelligent  laymen."—  The  Independent. 

"On  the  pervading  and  multiform  character  of  this  promise,  see  a  recent,  as  well 
as  valuable  authority,  in  the  volume  of  Dr.  Briggs,  of  the  New  York  Theological 
Seminary,  on  '  Messianic  Prophecy.' " — W.  E.  GLADSTONE. 

"  Prof.  Briggs'  Messianic  Prophecy  is  a  most  excellent  book,  in  which  I  greatly 
rejoice."— Prof.  FRANZ  DELITZSCH. 

"  All  scholars  will  join  in  recognizing  its  singular  usefulness  as  a  text-book.  It  has 
been  much  wanted." — Rev.  CANON  CHEYNE. 

"It  is  a  book  that  will  be  consulted  and  prized  by  the  learned,  and  that  will  add  to 
the  author's  deservedly  high  reputation  for  scholarship.  Evidences  of  the  ability, 
learning  and  patient  research  of  the  author  are  apparent  from  the  beginning  to  the 
end  of  the  volume,  while  the  style  is  remarkably  fine."—  Phtia.  Presbyterian. 

"  His  new  book  on  Messianic  Phrophecy  is  a  worthy  companion  to  his  indispens- 
able text-book  on  Biblical  study  ....  What  is  most  of  all  required  to  insure  the 
future  of  Old  Testament  studies  in  this  country  is  that  those  who  teach  should  satisfy 
their  students  of  their  historic  connection  with  the  religion  and  theology  of  the  past. 
Prof.  Briggs  has  the  consciousness  of  such  a  connection  in  a  very  full  degree,  and 
yet  he  combines  this  with  a  frank  and  unreserved  adhesion  to  the  principles  of  modern 

criticisms He  has  produced  the  first  English  text-book  on  the  subject  of 

Messianic  Prophecy  which  a  modern  teacher  can  use."—  The  London  Academy. 


This  book  is  for  sale  by  all  Booksellers,  or  will  be  sent,  post-paid,  on  receipt  of  price,  by 

CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS,    Publishers, 
743  and  745  Broadway,  New  York. 


Biblical  Study. 

,  Its  Principles,  Methods,  and  History  of  its  Branches,  together 
with  a  Catalogue  of  Books  of  Reference.  By  CHARLES  A.  BRIGGS, 
D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew  and  the  Cognate  Languages  in  Union 
Theological  Seminary,  New  York.  Third  Edition.  One  volume, 
crown  8vo,  $2.50. 

"  A  choice  book,  for  which  we  wish  wide  circulation  and  deep  influence  In  its  own 
land  and  also  recognition  among  us.  The  author  maintains  his  position  with  so  much 
spirit  and  in  such  beautiful  language  that  his  book  makes  delightful  reading,  and  it  is 
particularly  instructive  for  Germans  on  account  of  the  very  characteristic  extracts 
from  the  writings  of  English  theologians  of  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries. 
Moreover,  he  is  unusually  familiar  with  German  literature  of  recent  date  as  well  as 
with  that  of  the  earlier  period." — Zarncke'a  Literaturisches  Centralblatt  fur  Deutsch- 
land. 

"  Here  is  a  theological  writer,  thoroughly  scientific  in  his  methods,  and  yet  not 
ashamed  to  call  himself  evangelical.  One  great  merit  of  this  handbook  is  the  light 
which  it  throws  on  the  genesis  of  modern  criticism  and  exegesis.  Those  who  use  it 
will  escape  the  crudities  of  many  English  advocates  of  half-understood  theories.  Not 
the  least  of  its  merits  is  the  well-selected  catalogue  of  books  of  reference— English, 
French,  and  German.  We  are  sure  that  no  student  will  regret  sending  for  the  book." 
—  The  Academy,  London. 

"  Dr.  Briggs  begins  with  a  chapter  upon  the  advantages  of  Biblical  study,  and  the 
subjects  of  the  following  chapters  are :  Exegetical  Theology,  the  Languages  of  the 
Bible,  the  Bible  and  Criticism,  the  Canon  and  Text  of  the  Bible,  Higher  Criticism, 
Literary  Study  of  the  Bible,  Hebrew  Poetry,  Interpretation  of  Scripture,  Biblical 
Theology,  and  the  Scriptures  as  a  Means  of  Grace.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  subjects 
occupy  a  wide  range,  and,  ably  treated  as  they  are.  the  volume  becomes  one  of  real 
value  and  utility.  Appended  to  the  work  is  a  valuable  catalogue  of  books  of  reference 
in  biblical  studies,  and  three  indexes — of  Scriptures,  of  topics,  and  of  books  and 
authors.  The  publishers  have  done  honor  to  the  work,  and  it  deserved  it." — The 
Churchman. 

"  The  minister  who  thoroughly  masters  this  volume  will  find  himself  mentally  in- 
vigorated, as  well  as  broadened  in  his  scope  of  thought ;  will  almost  certainly  be  able  to 
better  satisfy  himself  in  his  understanding  of  what  the  truth  is  which  from  the  Bible 
he  ought  to  preach  to  men  ;  and  so  will  speak  from  his  pulpit  with  new  force,  and 
find  his  words  mightier,  through  God,  to  the  pulling  down  of  strongholds." — Boston 
Congregationalist. 

"After  all  that  we  have  heard  of  the  higher  criticism,  it  is  refreshing  to  find  so 

scholarly  and  trenchant  defences  of  the  old  paths His  historical  account  of  the 

movement  and  developement  among  the  English-speaking  scholars  is  very  valuable. 
This,  and  the  chapter  on  the  '  Literary  Study  of  the  Bible,'  are  among  the  best  in  this 
excellent  book."—  New  York  Christian  Advocate  (Methodist). 

"  We  are  constrained  to  rank  this  book  as  one  of  the  signs  of  the  times  in  the  Amer- 
ican church.  It  marks  the  rising  tide  of  Biblical  scholarship,  Christian  liberty  of 
thought  and  evangelical  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures."—  Christian  Union. 

"  There  are  many  grounds  on  which  the  work  may  be  earnestly  commended.  Large 
reading  in  German  and  English,  quick  apprehension  of  the  salient  points  of  opposing 
theories,  an  unflagging  earnestness  of  purpose,  and  very  positive  belief  in  his  positions 
conspire  to  make  the  work  instructive  and  attractive.  But  above  all  these  excellences 
there  shines  out  the  author's  deep  reverence  for  the  whole  Bible."—  The  Examiner 
(Baptist,  N.  Y.)  

This  book  is  for  sale  by  all  Booksellers,  or  will  be  sent,  post-paid,  on  receipt  of  price,  by 

CHABLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS,    Publishers, 

743  and  745  Broadway,  New  York. 


American   Presbyterianism : 

Its  Origin  and  Early  History,  together  with  an  Appendix  of  Letters 
and  Documents,  many  of  which  have  recently  been  discovered. 
By  CHARLES  A.  BRIGGS,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew  and  the  Cog- 
nate Languages  in  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 
I  volume,  crown  Svo,  with  Maps.  $3.00. 

"  Tl.e  Presbyterian  Church  owes  a  debt  of  gratitude  to  the  enthusiasm  and  antiquar- 
ian research  of  Professor  Briggs.  He  seems  to  have  seized  the  foremost  place  among 
them,  and  his  vigorous,  skilful,  and  comprehensive  researches  put  all  Protestant 
Christians,  and  especially  Congregationaliets,  under  obligation  to  him."— Boston 
Congregationalist. 

"  This  is  an  admirable  and  exhaustive  work,  full  of  vigorous  thinking,  clear  and 
careful  statement,  incisive  and  judicious  criticism,  minute  yet  comprehensive  research. 
It  is  such  a  book  as  only  a  man  with  a  gift  for  historical  inquiry  and  an  enthusiasm 
for  the  history  and  principles  of  his  Church  could  have  produced.  It  represents  an 
amazing  amount  of  labor.  Dr.  Briggs  seems  to  have  searched  every  available  source, 
British  and  American,  for  printed  or  written  documents  bearing  on  his  subjects,  and 
he  has  met  with  wonderful  success.  He  has  made  many  important  discoveries,  illus- 
trative of  the  Puritan  men  and  period,  useful  to  himself,  but  certain  also  to  be  helpful 
to  all  future  inquiries  in  this  field." — British  Quarterly  Review. 

"The  work  before  us  bears  evidence  of  a  research  which  is  as  gratifying  as  it  is  un- 
nsual.  We  allude  particularly  to  the  examination  of  MSS.  in  England  and  Scotland, 
as  well  as  in  this  country  ;  and  to  the  very  thorough  and  careful  collation  of  author- 
ities on  the  whole  subject.  The  author  has  been  for  years  securing  the  writings  of 
Westminster  divines,  and  the  light  which  these  books  now  cast  on  the  inception  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  America  is  not  only  new,  but  invaluable." — The  Christian 
Union. 

"  The  volume  is  a  substantial  addition  to  the  literature  of  the  subject.  It  is  good  in 
itself,  and,  besides,  must  exert  a  powerful  influence  in  leading  others  to  examine  the 
sources  of  knowledge  here  brought  to  notice,  and  give  the  Church  the  benefit  of  re- 
newed investigation.  The  author  deserves  the  warm  thanks  of  all  the  Reformed  who 
hold  the  Presbyterian  system." — N.  Y.  Observer. 

"The  original  investigations  of  the  author  have  put  him  in  possession  of  much 
material  hitherto  unused It  ought  to  be  added  that  the  volume  touches  so  con- 
stantly upon  the  early  history  of  New  England  as  to  be  indispensable  to  the  student 
of  American  Congregationalism,  while  all  lovers  of  antiquarian  research  will  find  much 
in  it  to  interest  them."— Sunday-School  Times. 

"This  book  accomplished  what  it  professedly  aimed  at It  is  really  wonder- 
ful how  much  valuable  knowledge  Dr.  Briggs  has  been  able  to  press  into  the  volume. 
We  commend  the  work  to  our  Presbyterian  readers.  It  wiil  give  them  a  reason  for 
the  faith  that  is  in  them,  and  it  will  make  them  proud  of  the  history  of  the  denomin- 
ation to  which  they  belong." — The  Scotsman. 

"It  will  be  of  priceless  value  to  the  future  historian,  and  Dr.  Briggs  deserves  the 
thanks  of  the  whole  Church  for  his  laborious  researches,  and  for  his  success  in  rescu- 
ing from  oblivion  so  many  significant  facts." — Chicago  Interior. 

"  Professor  Briggs  has  written  the  history  of  American  Presbyterianism  in  a  manner 
which  exhibits  it  as  an  essential  part  of  the  Christianity  of  the  country,  and  makes 
every  reader  whose  range  is  large  enough  for  such  views,  feel  a  personal  pride  in  it  as 
a  history  in  which  he  himself  has  an  interest  and  a  share." — Jf.  Y.  Independent. 


This  book  is  for  sale  by  all  Booksellers,  or  witt  be  sent,  post-paid,  on  receipt  of  price,  by 
CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S   SONS,    Publishers, 

743  and  745  Broadway,  New  York. 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


' 


752  rs 


4:^ 


II 


